1.

Marlboro Man (Aryanna Hinckley)

1. How does the composition of the photograph contribute to its effect? Why is the focus
exclusively on the face rather than a longer shot that would include the entire body?
The composition highlights the importance of men being the ones to use Marlboro. The
blurry background helps focus on the man and solely the man. This also contributes to the
reasoning behind only having his face in the shot rather than his whole body. Adding in his
whole body leaves room for background and blurring out the whole background to only
capture the man can get confusing or distracting to the audience.
2. What is the effect of the subject’s gaze not meeting with the eyes of the viewer?
With Young’s gaze not meeting the camera it gives him a far off look that makes him look
more “manly”.
3. Life magazine assigned McCombe to do a story that dispelled the glamorous image of
cowboys seen in Hollywood movies of the period and, instead, documented the hard working
life of ranchers. What stereotypes about cowboys or the West does the photo exploit-- or
combat?
The photograph adds into the stereotypical ideals people have of cowboys, specifically ones
from the west. In Hollywood movies you can see cowboys with their big cowboy hats, their
bandanas around their neck, sometimes smoking a cigar/cigarette and they usually have a
rough facial look. This photo of Clarence Hailey Young captures all of that.
4. Why do you think that this photo caught the eye of legendary advertising executive Leo
Burnett as a good choice for his campaign to transform the image of Marlboro cigarettes?
It shows someone that fits society’s masculinity roles smoking a cigarette. Most males are
more likely to buy something that has a very masculine male or very masculine items. During
the 1950’s when this campaign was being used, to males being seen as masculine was one
of the top most important things.

2. Being A Man (Louis Jensen)

1. Much of this essay consists of negative descriptions of what it means to Paul Theroux to
be masculine or a man. Why does he offer such strong images and assertions?

Virtually the entire essay is negative examples of what it means to “be a man”.
Throughout the writing, the author expresses many valid points pointing at the more
gruesome and inappropriate side of masculinity. I feel that these assertions and way of
speaking help to encourage readers to really gang up on the idea that the traditional view of
masculinity is not a positive one.

2. Do you agree or disagree with Theroux when he writes, “It is very hard to imagine any
concept of manliness that does not belittle women, and it begins very early” (para. 5)?
Explain.

I can see both sides of this statement. From one point of view, based on modern day
thinking and a personal level of insight, I would have to disagree as I feel that “being a man”
has become a lot more personal to each individual, and the meaning of that statement is
very different for everyone that readers it.
Nevertheless, I do have to agree with the author in general. Still today, and explicitly
in the past, manliness has often been heavily seasoned with ideas of objectifying women and
disrespecting their personal boundaries. At my age, I feel like oftentimes the most
stereotypical way boys show masculinity is by talking disrespectfully about their female
counterparts and comparing how much time they spend at the gym.

3. How does Theroux prepare his readers for the turn the essay takes in paragraph 12 when
he says, “There would be no point in saying any of this if it were not generally accepted that
to be a man is somehow — even now in feminist influenced America — a privilege”? What
does this statement reveal about Theroux’s overall purpose in this piece?

Based on this essay and the chosen quote, I feel that Theroux is attempting to show
readers that even though men have more rights than women here in the US, socially, other
men and society are constantly forcing very specific and very oppressive views on how a
man must behave to fit his “role”. With this essay the author is attempting to address this
issue and bring it to a better light for more individuals to see.

4. Theroux’s essay was written in 1983. Which of his points are outdated? Which ones do you
think remain true today?

Honestly, I feel like the vast majority of the points Theroux made can still stand true
to some degree or another. As I mentioned earlier, I feel like in today's society, many males
have taken masculinity to themselves and treated it as a more personal thing where they can
form their own thoughts on how they will “be a man”. Still, however, I do think as a whole
society tends to put a lot of pressure on guys to behave a specific way, or stear clear of
certain things and it is up to the individual to decide if they want to push against that or not.
This issue is especially prevalent in more conservative communities, when the idea of “being
a man” is not just expected, but required and set in place by a strict list of expectations. On
the other hand, I feel like younger, and more liberal communities are already ridding
themselves of the stereotypical masculinity that plagues so many individuals.

3. The Myth of Male Decline

1. Stephanie Coontz begins by addressing in a counterargument. What is that

counterargument, and how does she address it?

The counterargument is that women have become the “richer sex” and that men are
being left in the shadows. She addresses this by explaining that men are still in more
power positions than women. Women only make up 17% of Congress, and she starts
asking the question why after all this time, are things still like this?
2. How does Coontz define the term “patriarchal dividend” (para.3)? To what extent do you
agree that there is such a benefit?

Coontz defines the term “patriarchal dividend” as “a lifelong affirmative action program
for men.” To a large extent, I agree that there is such a benefit, because men have given
the step up in a lot of different things. For example, in the text she provides examples,
such as giving men the right to decide where the family should live, allow for financial
decisions to be made by the man, and also take away female consent to sex. Therefore,
Marital rape was not illegal and not a crime.

3. What evidence does Coontz provide to support her contention that “Most men are in fact
behaving better than ever” (para. 7)?

The evidence that Coontz provides to support her contention that “Most men are in fact
behaving better than ever” were statistics and behaviors she lists, such as the fact that
domestic violence rates have been halved since 1993. Rapes and sexual assaults have
also decreased by 70%. And husbands have been doing better and improved overall as
a whole.

4. What does Coontz mean by her claim that the real problem is men’s “overinvestment in
their gender identity” (para. 9)? Is it the same as “the masculine mystique” (para. 11)?
Explain.

Coontz means by her claim that the real problem is men’s “overinvestment in their
gender identity” that “being a man” and being “man enough” has become more important
than being a good person or a person with morals in general. Coontz brought up that
women have been constrained by the “feminine mystique,” but that men face an equally
restrictive gener mystique. For example, the expectation that men must provide for the
family and it is their responsibility to do the finances and make the income. Another
example that the author provides is the fact that men who are more actively engaged
with their children or family life are more likely to be harassed in a work setting.

5. How effectively does Coontz support her claim that the “masculine mystique is
institutionalized in work structures” (para. 13)?

I think that Coontz supported their claim very effectively by providing statistics,
examples, scenarios and more. Also, the fact that the author was able to completely
make herself credible by providing nuance and counterarguments to make the claim
more defensible. She supports this specific claim by brining awareness to the toxic
comments and harassment that appear in a work setting when a men priortizes family
and children over work or shows that they matter to him at all.
 6. To what extent do you agree with Coontz’s assertion that “the ascent of women does not
portend the end of men and instead “offers a new beginning for both” (para. 14)?
Explain, using examples from your own experience and knowledge?

I agree with Coontz’s assertion that “the ascent of women does not portend the end of
men and instead “offers a new beginning for both” because I think that men have been
hurt and pushed into a box of what they are supposed to be and feel and act like, and I
think this has caused them to be unable to be anything different than what they are
expected to be. I think if men and women were allowed to be the people they want to be
rather than being shoved into a picture of what it is to be a man or woman, I think it
would truly be a new beginning for each of them, and improve the world as a whole.

4. Kali Holloway |Toxic Masculinity Is Killing Men: The Roots of Men and Trauma (Matt S)

1. What does Kali Holloway mean by what she calls the “social constructions of masculinity”
(para. 1)?
She means that masculinity is something that society has created and forced upon men. Being
a male inherently makes you masculine, even if the attributes that one male may have aren’t
what society has decided them to be. Society puts a standard on a Man, of what it means to be
one, and has no room for difference, whereas in reality they are all equally men.

2. Holloway enumerates a list of medical problems to which these expectations of masculinity

contribute, but she also asserts that they can cause “a sort of spiritual death” (para. 2). What
does she mean?
She means that while there may not be any physical or visible effects from it, the Masculinity
can cause a man to die inside. His emotions and other things die as he has learned to suppress
and remove them. Lots of personality and natural emotions are removed due to the restrictions
society has put on being a “real” man.

3. In paragraphs 3-5, Holloway recounts ways that parents, often unintentionally, support and
enforce socially constructed gender roles for male children from a young age. What are two of
the most pernicious of these roles? From your own observation or experience, how pervasive is
this “emotionally shortchanging” of boys, as Holloway calls it?
They assume different actions based upon gender, such as a scared girl vs an angry boy. Also
they relate certain emotions and actions to girls only, some of which are important to boys as
well. It seems the effects of this are the most influential, as something that a child learns as his
core values when he is young, are carried with him for most of his life. It is very hard to change
a habit that you have had for a year, and almost impossible to change one that you have carried
your entire life. Every small idea or change can have a great effect later on.

4. To what extent do you agree with Holloway’s analysis of “media-perpetuated constructions of

masculinity” (para. 9)? Use examples form today’s media (e.g., television, film, video games,
celebrity lifestyles) to support your viewpoint.
I believe that such things only have the effect because society values it. The reason things
become popular in those areas are things that people like. All it does is add to the idea that is
already there. If people in the first place rejected those ideas, it wouldn’t add anything. The
people creating these things are only creating what society wants, and it is clear that the ideas
that we are rejecting, and the things that we support and fantasize about being.

5. In her discussion of behaviors and attitudes that are “taught,” Holloway corrects herself after
referring to the disconnection of boys from their feminine selves with the caveat, “or more
accurately, ‘human...’” (para. 13). Do you think that this clarification ultimately undermines – or
strengthens – Holloway’s case that the expectations of “being a man” are “poisonous and
potentially destructive” (para. 2).
It strengthens it because it shows how we automatically assume some of the natural emotions
for both men and women, to be feminien, and something that a man shouldn't have. It allows for
the reader to reflect and see how they thought those emotions are feminine, but in reality should
be ok for both men and women to feel. It shows how we have to watch what we automatically
assume, because that is the root cause of the problem.

6. In paragraph 18, Holloway asserts: “We have to get past our very ideas about what being a
man is. We have to start seeing men as innately so.” How do you interpret this claim?
It shows that men shouldn’t have to fit into certain parameters to become a man or have
masculinity, but accept that everything that they do is in fact masculine. There are too many
ideas in the world about what something should be, when in reality there is no checklist. She
wants us to accept everything that a man does as what a man should be doing, and that there
are no rules to what they can and cannot do.

5. The perils of being manly (Bodacious Beach)

1. What is the purpose of Roberto A. Ferdman’s opening anecdote about that emergency
room? How effective is it in illustrating a central point of the article?
The purpose of the opening sentence is to create a bond with him and the reader and to create
a connection and a first hand experience between the two. As well creating a very good opening
to the central point of the article that is the idea of men and how they hurt themselves by
keeping their masculinity and downplay pain to doctors.
2. What does the study published in the Journal of health Psychology demonstrate,
according to Ferdman, about the way self-perceptions of masculinity affect decisions
about health care? To what extent do the findings match with your own experience or
that of men and boys you know?
The study shows that men are more likely to pick a male doctor and when they have a male
doctor they are often less likely to show their true pain to the doctor when they get them thus
creating a poor environment to know what's truly wrong with a patient. I have my own
experience of downplaying pain when i was in the hospital for appendicitis and I made my
condition much better than it actually was and through the confusing results doctors received
and through the poor treatment I inflicted myself with a burst appendix and a week long stay in
the hospital as a treat.
 3. What were the findings in the second study, published in the Journal Preventive
Medicine, about men’s behavior when seeing male versus female doctors? Be sure to
discuss the graph included with Ferdman’s article in your response.
They found that men often preferred male doctors and when they were able to get male doctors
they never spoke truly about their pain and with women doctors they were much more open with
pain and were less masculine.
4. What is the definition of “masculinity” that the researchers used? What is meant by such
terms as “masculine ideologies” (para. 17) or “masculine men” (para. 12)? The definition
that was used was to say how powerful they are or the self reliance on themselves.

5. The article ends with a warning not to put “too much weight on machismo” (para. 25)
from “a doctor who has worked as a generalist in Massachusetts for more than 30 years”
(para. 23). How strong do you find this challenge to the research being reported?
I find it much harder to have this challenged.

6. The Hard Adrenaline Soaked Truth about "Toxic Masculinity" (Amber Parker)
1. In paragraphs 3 and 4, Frank Miniter provides two definitions of “toxic masculinity.”
Which of these do you think is more accurate? How would you define the term?
I think that the second definition is more accurate because it provides a definition for what is to
be considered “manly” behavior. The Urban Dictionary definition says that men are expected to
be “as manly as possible” but fails to define what “manly” is. The Good Men Project definition
outlines manhood and manliness to be “defined by violence, sex, status and aggression.” While
both definitions have the same general idea, the second definition is more specific
2. Miniter claims that, basically, “manliness” has been defined as a “psychological disorder”
(para. 5) that promotes violent, destructive behavior. What evidence does he present to
support this claim?
“telling young men to “man up” or “grow a pair” is making young men do violent things. They
say old-school patriarchal elements of society are pushing them to prove themselves to their
peers in destructive ways. Man’s caveman traits, they argue, run toxic with adrenaline unless
our young men can swear off being men.” “Confucian principles, knightly conduct and
gentlemanly codes developed and used to channel boys’ natural aggression in positive ways as
mentors show them how to be stand-up men living a chivalric code.”
Miniter gives evidence like the stated above to show that “masculinity” has often been treated as
a disorder- the nature of men, dating back to caveman years, runs high with adrenaline, they
are motivated to do destructive things. To be masucline is to hone the “caveman” traits. In the
past, this nature has been channeled into more positive things. He then goes on to describe
how colleges are dealing with it- constructing “new masculinities”, that the future of which are,
according to the article, “unrestricted by power, privilege, and oppression.” Other colleges are
highlighting the connection between masculinity and violence, and others that are run by
women, encouraging men to examine their masculinity and it's toxic traits.
3. Miniter’s target in this article is the academic world, particularly colleges. What is his
basic criticism of programs such as the three he discusses? How do they “emasculate”
(para. 14) young men? How valid do you find his objections?
Oregon State- examine past experiences/history to understand what has shaped the present
masculinities, pretty much examine the past to see how men can better form their manliness in
the present and “engage systems of power”
Ithaca College- examines the connection between masculinity and violence, basically telling
young men that being a man causes violence. Wants to “help willing individuals to begin to
recognize, acknowledge, own, and disrupt the toxicity of manhood in order to end violence.”
Duke University- examines how men present themselves in order to “begin the work of
unlearning violence”. This specifically was sponsored by the Women's center.
He states “A group of academics telling boys not to be men will only make the problems
associated with young men who haven’t learned to be gentleman worse.” He is saying thay by
teaching these people that being a man is bad, they will never grow up. It is not the “being a
man” itself that is bad, it is the fact that many men don't know how to put those traits into
something positive. They haven't learned how to “be gentlemen” and correctly use their traits for
good.
4. What is Miniter’s definition of a “gentleman”? What associations do you have with this
word?
“Becoming a gentleman is about finding real, heart-thumping ways to test yourself that will help
you become your best self.” He says that a gentleman has honor and respect for those around
him. I agree with this definition. I associate the word “gentleman” with honor, respect, politeness,
and chivalry. A gentleman, at least in the way Miniter uses it, is different from a man. A
gentleman is a man who has learned how to use their masculine traits for the betterment of
others.
5. In paragraph 16, Miniter describes the running of the bulls in Spain. How does this
example serve as evidence for the case he is making?
He says that men should have a sort of trial or test in something real. He used this example as a
real-life trial that men have gone through in order to help them hone their masculinity into
something good. It teaches these men respect, responsibility, and rule-following skills. The
running of the bulls is a dangerous thing that teaches men to hone their masucline traits for the
better.
6. What constitutes “growing experiences” (para. 17), according to Miniter?
“It is about proving yourself in some real thing, a thing that will require you to struggle and live
up to something greater than yourself—places like karate dojos, boot camp and, yes,
volunteering at a soup kitchen can do this if done with your mind open. Those are growing
experiences.”
A growing experience is something that teaches an individual certain life skills through a trial of
some sort. This can be anything ranging from something aggressive to something sweet.
7. What questions might you raise in response to Miniter’s argument?
Can all men benefit from this method? How do we implement this in society effectively? What
studied, if any, back this up?
7. The Man Trap (Nathan Thomsen)

1. Although Emily Bobrow offers some statistical evidence of wage earnings and hours spent at
work, she mainly focuses on societal attitudes. Specifically, what are three societal issues that
she believes are contributing to men’s frustration and discontent?

● Men are more often expected to be “breadwinners” and therefore should be more
diligent in their work. Women, meanwhile, are more expected to be parental and
therefore are given more passes and leniency in work. Additionally, men are made to
work much longer hours with the assumption that they will have somebody to take care
of their children at home.

2. Why do you think traditional gender expectations become more pervasive when people
become parents? What does Bobrow mean by “that daddy track” (para. 8)? What do you think
might change this attitude or behavior?

● When people become parents, the gender roles are assumed and women can often find
a far more flexible work schedule than a man can, because women are typically viewed
as the caretakers. The “daddy track” is a reversal of the “mommy track”, where women
are given lower prestige and promotions but are able to care for their offspring. Some
men dislike not having a “daddy track”, which makes it effectively impossible for the man
to assume child-bearing duties. Perhaps if men are treated equally as women in terms of
maternity leave, they may feel as if they have more options and flexibility.

3. Paragraph 4 discusses the impact that having children has on earnings for both men and
women and on the relationships between work expectations and “a more gendered division of
labour at home.” What are the cause-and-effect relationships at work here?

● When the parents have a child, the woman’s wages are almost instantly depressed
because it is assumed that they will be the ones to take care of the child, cutting her
hours. In the meantime, the father will be given more hours for a meagre pay raise, with
the assumption that they will work more to support their children. This often means that
the women don’t work as much as they’d like, while the men work way more than they’d
prefer.

4. In what ways does Bobrow point out that institutional changes – or policies – have outpaced
or are in conflict with gendered expectations, both in terms of the way people see themselves
and the way others see them? Pay particular attention to paragraph 9 (“His colleagues are right
to be cautious”).
 ● In today’s society, women can work almost equally as well as men, in similar jobs and
departments. However, men still face the struggles of getting leave for their children,
often facing harsher penalties than women and therefore making it more taboo for men
to ask for flexibility.

5. To what extent are the issues that are the focus of this article the exclusive realm of highly
educated professionals? In what ways might the same issues apply to men who work in
blue-collar professions?

● Although the article mentions educated professionals, and the advice is often directed to
them, these arguments are not entirely singular to professionals and they instead apply
to a large amount of the workforce. People in blue-collar professions involving more
manual labor, although might face different circumstances and troubles with their work,
still overall face the same prejudices and biases in gender roles. They may be even
more vulnerable, as they are not able to work from home or make up for their time as
they take care of their children.

8. Talking to Boys the Way We Talk To Girls (Saee Ashtaputre)

1. What, according to Andrew Reiner, is “the defining soundtrack to masculine identity” (para.
2)?

The “defining soundtrack to masculine identity,” according to Reiner, are words such as “strong,”
“big,” and cool.” These are typically seen as the more traditionally masculine characteristics.

2. In paragraph 4, Reiner reports on several studies of how parents interact verbally with their
infants and young children. What conclusions do you draw from this research?

From the several studies discussed, we can conclude that from a very young age, girls are
taught to express their emotions, while boys are taught to become “strong” and goal-oriented.
The studies show how parents interact differently with girls and boys. With girls, parents are
more open with their emotions and treat them in a gentle manner(eg: telling them to be careful
when they get hurt, explaining fully how to climb on a playground ladder, etc.) With boys,
parents are “tougher” and more direct.

3. Reiner reports on a research study at Emory University that concludes that “discrepancies in
fathers’ language may contribute to ‘the consistent findings that girls outperform boys in school
achievement outcomes” (para. 5). What other variables would you want to consider before
making a definitive statement on the relationship between fathers’ language and children’s
school performance?

- Differences in how teachers interact with girls and boys

- The school environment
- Influence of mothers
 - Societal expectations: marketing, media, etc.

4. In his article, Reiner places a number of words in quotation marks – not because he is
quoting someone else but to indicate a meaning other than the most expected one: e.g.,
“analytical” (para. 5), “directives,” and explanations” (para. 6). What do you think he means by
each of these terms?

“Analytical”: I think he is referring to language that is emotionless and behavior that is closed off.
“Directives”: He’s trying to say that parents usually let boys figure things out by themselves.
They don’t give specific instructions.
“Explanations”: This word indicates that parents just tell their daughters how to do everything
rather than letting them figure it out.

5. In paragraph 7, Reiner comments on why boys tend not to like the literature studied in their
English classes. To what extent do you agree with his analysis, based on your own experience?

I disagree with his statement. To me, it seems as if he’s projecting what society says onto a
topic that doesn’t really involve gender. I’ve never noticed a huge difference in the number of
girls and boys who dislike books we read in class. And usually, the reasons why people don’t
like books have nothing to do with emotion. They are mostly things such as characterization,
plot, writing style, etc.

6. What evidence does Reiner offer to support his statement that men are “born more
emotionally sensitive than girls” (para. 10)?

Reiner uses a study done at Harvard Medical School. Researchers found that infant sons
needed more support in controlling their emotions, so mothers would become more attentive to
them during pregnancy. However, mothers eventually tried to restrict their emotional reactivity by
limiting physical contact.

7. Reiner concludes by offering suggestions for changing what he calls the tendency to “limit the
emotional vocabulary of boys” (para. 14). Would you characterize these suggestions as solid,
oversimplified, or something else?

I think the solutions Reiner offers are oversimplified. He suggests that parents should have more
discussions about emotions with their sons like they do with their daughters. This would be a
good starting point, but I don’t think that it will have the effect Reiner is hoping for.