JUST GUYS

Here in our very last chapter, Kimmel untangles and sorts what all this dead end horrific things do to boys and where it puts them. Guyland however is not a place where even most guys end up, but more of something a lot of guys tolerate. He provides an example for instance where two college pledges who were forced to heckle girls doing the "walk of shame" in the morning.  It only took one boy to talk with another about their shared aversion to it, and together spoke up.  Speaking up as a team revealed how almost everyone was very against the activity.  A lot of what seems to drive these activities is the assumption that you are they are the only one resisting or having second thoughts, when what driving the activity is tradition. This kind of thinking happens in many arenas of society such as religion, patriotism, sports, etc.,  and it takes courage to question any kind of tradition, especially when it is supporting your indentity as a human being.  

Another vital key to manhood is a boys non-romantic relationships to women.  As they are often targeted for encouraging feminization of boys, mothers and sisters can teach a boy to be respectful of women.  I strongly agree with Kimmel's point that non-romantic relationships are key for a lot of guys- it builds the idea at an early age that we are all people for one, and respect for the opposite sex can really be strengthened in a non-romantic friendship.

I for one have always always had as much as or more guy friends than girl friends- and in a way I think for both genders it is equalizing and balancing.  Being close to guys enables me talk about physically doing and getting confidence to do the things I conceptualize, and I and my guy friends are equally reliant on me to talk about things that are perhaps a little harder to bring up around other guys.  To feel confident however, I feel that both sexes need the company of the same sex to legitimize their sexuality or gender- there will always be large gaps between male and female.

I really do think that courage is the next step for guys.  I feel like no matter where a guys interest lies, or however feminine it may seem, courage and self respect take guys to a certain level of manhood.  Most things I read within Guyland reflect a large amount of cowardice, defensiveness, or fear of committing."Most guys are desperate for permission to do the right thing, rather than swallow their complicity with the wrong thing."  Here I think is the underlying sentiment in the mind's of guys, as if they are waiting for consent from other guys to do what they think is right, or do what makes them happy.

Drunken Humps in the night 8.9.10.

Before Kimmel delves into the world of women and sex, he begins with the modern fantasy: porn.  His main thesis for porn's purpose and exsistence is based on the idea that men, whether they are concious of it or not, are seeking revenge on women.  As Kimmel sees it, having sex as frequent as possible and with as many women as possible is a mainstay of the Guy Code.  As this is impossible, guys are trying to find a way to get even with girls who won't give in.  He presents that the contradiction is in that the world is full of 'eye candy' with women who reinforce their looks to attract men, yet don't say yes to sex as easy or say yes all.  Porn is an outlet to that frustration in which the world gives into desires.  Too me, it's also a big 'Fuck you' to women who aren't giving into a man's sexual agenda, or in a deeper way who are hurting his self image (which is the thing that needs to examined).   Looking deeper, which Kimmel touched on but didn't explain, is women's general disinterest towards pornography or ability to be turned on by naked men- which in turn says something about mens general misunderstandings about the complexities of sex and attraction.  Sexual fantasy can be purely fantastical for those purposes, an intimate place is an easy place to express or act out fantasies.  But when visited over and over again, sexual fantasy is misleading, distorting of sex and love, and demonstrates something one is missing in oneself.  No one can be missing naked 17 year olds from themselves, but perhaps missing a healthy outlook on their own maturity or childhood.  To me, porn takes us very far away from the human experience in one of the most human experiences possible.  

Hooking up, as it may appear to be the way of sexual liberation, seems to be a more confining way of finding love, making love, and making all decisions based around sex and love.  The way Kimmel describes the college culture's version of hooking up is completely lost in a loveless vat of alcohol, forgetting, and regretting.  

Hooking up however, can also be seen for really what it is, an experience, where hopefully we are sober enough to understand what is happening.  Whether we are useful with this experience or use it as an 'impressive' story is another thing however.  Although Kimmel puts 'hooking up' predominately in guy world, I would say it's in the girl's world just as much.   I know a lot of girls who really want to tack on the numbers of guys they've hooked up with, but I think its more for legitimizing feelings of personal power and choice rather than a ticket for bragging rights.

The statement these people are making about not wanting the work and hardships of having a relationship seems to be a cop out, an avoidance of something they don't know how to do.   People are running around with their heads cut off trying to get somebody to get them off, when really falling in love is the best practice for marriage and such, not drunken humping in the night.  Also, do we not know how to flirt gracefully and tactfully, for every meeting we make with a romantic other should not be covered in booze.  

However much it be the friendmaker, alcohol is also the evil accomplice of rape, or predatory sex.  Much like in guys consumption of porn, Kimmel outlines how rape is the ultimate and physical revenge, an extreme end to a means, of a sort of revenge towards women.  In my childhood I remember my first idea of what rape meant. Although cloudy, I was almost certain it began with a kidnapping or abduction.  In reality, rape is more cloudy and less criminal looking in it's exposition.  This exposition often begins at parties, certainly with alcohol, and definetly a lot of confusion as to the boundaries of the situation.   Where either member of the consenting party is actual consenting will be unclear when people are drunk as hell, but there is no doubt that within the code of guyland that coercion with girls is perfectly acceptable, if not formula.  To imagine all the things Kimmel writes about to be actually true is hard,  and extremely inexcusable. 

Kimmel 4.5.6.

Chapter Four was entitled 'High School: Boot Camp for Guys'- if not a boot camp, high school I feel does take a lot of strategy to navigate.  The biggest point Kimmel touches on that I resonate with, is that boys "seem to become more confident, even beyond their abilities", and that at adolescense "girls suppress ambition, boys inflate it".  I could not agree more with this statement in terms of looking at my self and others in my high school and growing up.  Largely too much focus can be on boys, and I find this likely due to the over-confidence factor that boys imbibe. If the tables were turned, would boys be trying hard to get on the same level as girls?

On his section on bullying, I found it really important in his point that the bully and the bullied both should have counseling/aid.  As it is in a lot of these topics, it seems that there is one vital thing that people are forgetting to examine, such as the agressors instead of the victim, or in the case of violence why is it particularly boys and never girls.   However confident a bully might seem, underlying is most likely a myriad of issues and insecurities that need to be addressed.  The amount of kids in schools that feel different or 'freaky' are that are left alone, or as in the saying 'boys will be boys' goes, seems it should be addressed.  Gun violence done by boys, as it is the extreme example, seems to be a flag that stands for a lot of pain that many, many boys are going through in schools that is silenced.  How much a teacher should intervene in the social scene in educational settings is questionable, for a lot needs to be learned without adults, but kids in high school need the safety from other kids if it comes to it.  Teachers should not turn their backs to what they think are normal behaviors in high school that are indeed very harmful.

Hazing, something unseen and unexperienced by myself (and most people I know), is a terribly extreme example of how boyhood has gotten off track and gone wrong.  The 'cultish' attitudes that are deep within hazing seem to be a skewed idea of what boys think manhood initiations are. The entire idea of hazing seems to be a strange double ended process, in which boys must be tough and act like 'men' to achieve the reward of getting to be 'boys' for the next four years.  Shame, pain, and humilitation rarely equates to a world of stupidity and fun.

Sports, as I agree with Kimmel, is a last arena for boys to be boys.  It is entered to a degree by women, by men take it to a different level that feels inflated and eager to prove.  What sports seems to be about these days has more to do with the commodificaiton of the sport as well as doing your best to prove you are a 'fan', and a man of course.  On a deeper level however, as we all relate male to the physical world, I know it to be true of men to engage in deep conversations about the physical things in which they are engaging- no matter what subculture you belong the recipe still remains the same.

 

Kimmel 1-3

In his introductory chapters in GUYLAND, Michael Kimmel describes what he considers a new demographic of boys-becoming-men, of the ages 16-26. Although Guyland may sound like a broad spectrum, he is actually specifically referring to white, middle-class, college applicants, students and graduates. Why this specific group should be considered to dominate 'guyland' is at first a little narrow sighted seeming, however it he defines it as the thing that is defining of the ones who participate or actively reject.

Guyland, he describes, is a culture that has been mainly formed on new ideas of manhood and prolonged adolescence. It is the confusion of really beginning manhood or post-college life, that is so terribly bent around the 'guy code' that has been created it does not want to break it's own rules, even if it would better them. These rules, which are have been subconsciously constructed are based on this cultures desire to preserve their masculinity. These rules exhibit extreme attitudes about man-to-man loyalty, homophobia, no-pain, and the all defining 'bros before hos' loyalty. All in all, Kimmel is mainly exhibiting how these ideas boys are outlining their lives with as well as a faltering economy are truely creating an entirely new world apart from what their parents experienced.

I find it hard to line up 'guys' as I know them to these ideas- I have never been to a university and neither have any of the boys close to me. What I do see however, is this resistance to adulthood. I see 'boys' who are almost 30, working at the same low wage job as me. What I see from my generation is a terrifying view of commitment into both fields of relationships and careers, which perhaps stems from divorced parents. We don't want to fuck it up like they did, part of the reason why some of us are waiting for the ideal thing to fall in our laps. And the words 'fall in our laps' is the most dangerous- it tells of this generations sense of being privileged and special, like Kimmel notes. What I see are boys who are still dying to explore and define themselves in the world, which for some reason might be taking longer than it did a couple decades ago.

I think an emotional attatchment to a career, or as Kimmel says a career that establishes a sense of importance and masculinity, is highly was is lacking for a lot of boys in this world. I have reason to believe the decline in jobs that are more akin to materiality, or trade jobs, has something to do with a lack of desire to enter into a career for boys. The purpose of money itself has also changed, as Guyland has been transformed largely into consumer culture. Perhaps the biggest question remains for most boys, which is what are they working towards?

Boys and Television

In 'Super Size Me: What Boys watch', a huge discourse is laid out concerning just about everything boys are exposed to through television. Most television for boys begins in cartoon form, or a very whimiscal version of real life- which often makes it very hard to see through beneath all it's bright and childlike trappings. What is important in the studies this article finds is how children who watch a lot of television actually "hold more stereotypical views of gender roles", which is concerning due to the amount of violence, satire, and projections into teenage roles. How boys are defined as characters in cartoons is largely similar all around, with a large emphasis on little boy characters trying to imitate adult or teen behavior. Teen behavior is how things are marketed to children, even though teen themselves might have no interest in the product being sold. Adult behavior period, tends to be translated down through the simplicity of being a child, since it is adults writing for children. Violence, through a large spectrum) is perpetuated through most situations through shows (WWE) and cartoons- talking through problems or creativity is much less thought to be exciting for boys. Extremity, saracasm, and 'facing danger' with plain faces are played over and over in characters on tv (which most of time are also boys), even in Discovery channel shows it can be found.

In 'Dumb and Getting Dumber' the author expands on the notion of 'male stupidity' and how culturally we welcome it in the media, films, even politically. The film Sideways critics saw of a fresh of breath air, a movie about two older guys, both in their 40's- ugly and stupid, yet endearing. Although it may seem revolutionary that men are portrayed in this way, the author argues they are simply grown up versions of 'dudes' from teen comedies. Stranglely the author puts this film and ones like it in constrast with the cartoon Spongebob squarepants. Spongebob is a strange character in that manhood is something that he chases yet is somewhat indifferent to it, as well as his sexuality. His character is not trying to imitate teenagers or adults but to rather celebrate the flexibility of boyhood.

'Dude Tube', an article by Erin Amar, completely breaks down the psychology behind SPIKE: Television for Men. There are four components, which involve 'sensation seeking' situations, naming these situations as what they are ( dangerous! or outrageous!), idealisim and solving problems, and no consequences. If based in reality, results are shown to be simple and goal oriented, if in fantasty, the bounds are pushed far into the realms of violence, stupidity, and shock. Looking at the entirety of Spike's goals and programming, the author poses the question if the channel is worth having at all.

What men really want to watch on TV is disputable since patterns have been set and followed for a long time, sometimes but not often broken. Boundaries have been pushed as far as they can regarding censorship as far as violence, racism and sex go. I feel that TV has a fairly heavy male slant- I find most ads and shows to be agressive- subtely and 'thought' room is hard to find.

Playing and Growing Up through Pop Culture and Media

In 'Wanna Play? What boys Do', the authors lay out a very lengthy in depth look at how media pervades and contructs the actions and desires of boys.  Specifically, it is done through their toys, where certain ideas of masculinity are marketed, and the main messages being violence and control.  Gender construction through toys for boys starts fairly early on, around age three or four, where exciting messages of 'domination' or hints of militarism are found written or constucted through the toy itself.  The world of toys for boys has been written under fairly strict guidelines, a world we often take for granted.  Toys that should seem to be neutral (LEGO for instance) have even marketed their toys in ways that imitates militarism and aggression.  It seems that a neutrality has been lost, even in simple things like bicycles.

Sports is another culture that is ever surrounding boyhood, no matter what stance a boy takes in it, for not playing sports is a statement on ones 'boyness' just as much as playing sports is.  Playing sports is such a multi-faceted word; it encompasses ideas of comradery, self-confidence, love, aggression, fighting, competition.... yet in the media it seems that only the competitiveness and agression seems to really be represented.  Its something we don't even think about. In all forms of marketing towards boys, this 'extremity' and hyperactivity is sold everwhere, from TV commercials to energy drinks. 

It seems that toys are made to carry out fantasies, and if intended to carry out destructive fantasies (natural for boys but also for girls too) that there are more ways to do so than imitating an adult and violent world.   It seems to bastardize perhaps a natural and beautiful thing that males seems to embody, which is strength, and twist it into destruction and aggression.  Masculinity has made itself an exclusive culture, fighting everything that does not represent them (the feminine).

In Jonathan Tutely's article about boys attraction/marketing towards gunplay, he discusses parental role in keeping boys from the age old activity.  He is providing both sides of the argument, and is tending to  say that gunplay should neither be exactly repressed or encouraged.

'Men growing up to be boys' discusses how through the buying things that represent manhood rather than embodying manhood has become the new form of growing up.  Although it certainly doesn't cross over everywhere as it is true millions of men still respect and see marriage and being a family man as a form of masculinity, another message in the media is being pushed.  

Generation Confused, etc.

      In Heather Boerner's article 'Generation Confused' , she discusses the topic of what 'sexual health' really means today and what is the true value of all the technological and pharmacuetical advances we have made in sexual protection.  Sex-positiveness regarding parent to teen relationships generally covers parents dispelling knowledge about physical protection from pregnancy to STD's to their teens.  In 'sexual health', the author is referring what most people consider as physically being safe from the reprecussions of sexual activity.   However, she is trying to push the point that teens have been getting a plethora of mixed messages about attitudes and comfort in their dispositions towards sex.  Teens are bombarded with an association of pharmacueticals with healthy sex, but healthy sex needs to be seen as an emotional entity.  It seems parents rather close their eyes to the complexities and desires of teen sexuality, and while telling them to wait to have sex they still urge them to use protection.  Its as if they are being denied any information on being in an intimate sexual relationship if they do not wait to have sex.  It's as if it's easier for parents to only talk about the medical side of sex in a way of showing their responsibility towards their teens actions, when really what is important is how they understand sex in an emotional, passionate, yet serious way.

 The kind of things that would be healthy for teens to explore is valuing the other person in the relationship, and to understand it is a mutual exchange.   In the position of boys, the author brings up the idea of boys being equally responsible in sex, in providing protection, or even Plan B for instance.   I think that with  the advent of things like Plan B and newer types of birth control, it doesn't mean that responsibility towards your partner should be any less. 

      'Wet Dreams' from boysunderattack.com was an article meant to be read by young boys as a way of explaining the phenonmenon of wet dreams to young boys.  It goes through the reason for wet dreams, and often how they are concocted in the mind.  Alot of this article contained accounts from boys themselves and what they dreamt about, which often included dreams about family members, men, or boys their age.  The article explained how it is common for this to happen, and that is does not exactly equate the boy to being gay.  In a strange way, the article almost leaned too far, as to say that  boys should really not worry about being gay, as if it's a very unnatural and worrisome thing.  The whole point of the article seemed to be about making sure that boys masculinity would still stay intact even if they had dreams about other men and to not act on dreams or decide that you are gay.  In the end of the article, the congratulate you if you have had your first dream, equating it to the passage into manhood.  Overall, I think this article was confusing and to biased and laid out too many confusing ideas about something natural that happens to boys.

Hopfefully boys don't have to always go on the internet to learn about things like this, and could ideally be taught from parents who would be comfortable enough in talking to them about it.  To me, sexual health for boys needs to be more cultivated from open, non-embarrassed parents instead of the media.

What Boys Read + Thorns among Roses

'What Boys Read' explores the stereotypes within boys socialization around literacy and reading.  The stereotype is simple, being that in boys encouragment and habits towards the physical world, reading does not intertwine and when it does it is based on violence, action, or crude humor.  The author is exploring whether or not these stereotypes are created and wanted by boys themselves, or if these desires for action and battles in books are just furthered and assumed by authors.  While violence is often contained in good literature, the flipside of it is the story of the inner battle which explores the vulnerablilites and insecurites as experienced by boy characters.    Showing a real way of coping with violence, the author claims, is something important to be gained through literature- in a sense the battle has to gain more for the character other than superiority.  Magazines can be even worse in pushing stereotypes and desires in boys- for example in Nickelodeons magazine for 'kids' it is often targeted at a boy audience, and is often pushing the idea that boys are silly and stupid and contains an inherent rebellion against education.  

    'Thorns among Roses' focuses on the misunderstanding and behavior of boys learning development in and around the first grade. First grade, the author explains, is a vital time that sets the pattern for boys confidence and behavior in school, which is largely due to boys development in reading  in contrast to girls.  If boys are not up to speed with the lessons in class and are struggling, school can suddenly become a place that is associated with bad self confidence, and can also come out as 'deviant' behavior if they are showing resistance to something they don't understand.  Sucess or confidence, can make or break the rest of a child's experience within the school structure.   What the author also brings up is boys should not merely be dismissed as boys, in the sense that their strange or deviant behavior should not always be overlooked- they may be acting out in a way of avoiding an emotional, perhaps embarrassing,  situation.  In a big way boys tend to feel undervalued in the world of education.  

    Thinking back on my experience as a child, I never felt like a loser or incompetent.  I read at an early age and was highly encouraged by my parents to do so- I found great joy and reward in doing good school work.  What I did think about in the reading which now seems to ring true of my past experience is how kids that they claim to have natural talent, or are 'bloomers' are encouraged further with GATE (Gifted and Talented Education) programs, asking to read out loud in class, etc.  In a way I think the very notion of a program like GATE is more of a psychology for kids and works as a very high confidence- I couldn't imagine what it would have felt like for the other half of the class who stayed behind in the classroom when the GATE class went to go do their activities.  No matter what, kids need a lot of reinforcement within the school system.  

Boys and Race

Why Chicken Means to Much to Me. Sherman Alexie.
In this short story by Sherman Alexie poetically encapsulates the frustrations and expectations created within poverty, race, and constructed views of fatherhood. Chicken, as Alexie describes, was the savior of the very thing that is possibly the worst thing about being poor. However, there were things that caused more helplessness and anger than anything, which was when poverty finally caused his father to appear weak. In the case of his dog getting heat exhaustion and become fatally sick, the family has no money to take him to the vet; Alexie's father decides he has no choice but to mercy kill the dog. Alexies reaction to his fathers decision, let alone tears, creates an anger beyond something he can describe- mostly geared towards his father's weakness. This story really points out a key moment for boys, especially ones that come from a lineage of poverty and racial discrimination. Alexie wants to badly for his parents to be strong, to not be brought down by the stigma and reality of what has happened to their people, for his father to have strength, yet it causes an anger in him that he seems to only be able to run away from.
Making a Name for Yourself: Transgressive Acts and Gender Performance: Ann Ferguson.
In Ann Ferguson's essay, she is both looking at transgressive behavior from boys, specifically in schools, and also specifically African-American males. The essay is very specific in its attention on african-american boys because she claims they are generally witnessed as rule-breakers and performers- which perhaps makes a more direct observation for Ferguson.
She discusses three major strategies that boys use to emphasize and construct their masculinity as youth, which include heterosexual power, disruptive performance, and fighting. One of the underlying themes I sensed in all these 'tactics' that Ferguson proposed was a strong sense for boys to get attention and respect from their fellow peers, and also to dis-identify themselves from the realm of femininity comp. What was most interesting to me however was how Ferguson claimed how oral performance was a way in which blacks can express masculinity and make a name for oneself, which is strange because in one sense I think it's one of the most valubale things, but I wish she would explain more how she came to this conclusion, or railed it up against the 'performance' of other races.
The Puerto Rican Dummy and the Merciful Son.
Martin Espada.
Espada is a Puerto-Rican living in Massachutes. As a poet and intellect raising his four year-old son, Espada fears for his son in his knowledge and experience in a world where racism has brought him hurtling through the hoops of anger, violence, and stifled emotions. It's a world where Espada knows that will in some way or another cause his son to experience what it means to be a Latino male. What is important about this piece of writing however is that Espada's view is not to encourage the outward anger and violence that might be felt by such events, but to encourage his anger to be channeled in the most constructive of ways. He also understands the natural inclination for boys to experiement "with power and control" reguardless of how he may be raised in a way that does not condone violence. What he sees is Latino males being stereotyped as violent, and as stereotypes cause anger and then perpetuate the cyle.

In conclusion, the effect and stigma of certain races certainly creates a specific way of acting for men and boys that can be worlds apart from other races. It is important to historically understand how races construct their genders and to understand why certain things keep perpetuating themselves because they are stereotypes.

Why Chicken means So Much to Me,  the short story written by Sherman Alexie, seemed to really encapsulate a the vital emotional characteristic of boys within families. In the story, Sherman expresses his

American Manhood

E. Anthony Rotundo's articles on boy culture, male youth culture, and male intimacy are a historical summarization on the realms in which boys operate, from boyhood to manhood. The first article, on boy culture, is a strange read and to get used to, for Rotundo uses the word 'boys' as if they were a certain race of people, giving them a very specific history. This history is specific to 'Northern' boys, which assumedly contains North America.
Boy culture is descibed as a sub-culture, a culture in which boys must create for themselves, with themselves. Starting in the home, seperation unto their own world is begun when the kinship around mothers and daughters become hand-in-hand, and encouraged, and as fathers are presumably not at hand, the boys have access to the 'outside'. Boys have been defined by their physicality and independence, which in turn becomes the thing will bind boys together; a characteristic of boys is their involvement in clubs, teams, or gangs. The author uncovers how the driving forces that bring boys together; competition, loyalty, self-reliance, are also the things that can tear them apart from each other. The loyalty to their clubs and friends is also what sets in motion for boys to rebel against authority and even parents. In the voyage from boyhood to manhood, certain ways of boys are forever imprinted: their way of bonding with other men remains on a competitive yet loyal level, however now the intellectual side is favored over the physical. However, the author points out how close to intimacy this physical relationship was with young boys, and once a boy has transitioned into a mans world it is often that women will be the only intimate relationship, as it with women that is never lost. However, the notion of homosexuality in the 1800's was nonexsistent, so if there was intimacy between men there was not the same kind of anxiety present today. However, Rotundo states that one of big factors that lay between men and his relationships was his strong commitment to a career, which can further estrange a person, in contrast to a woman's constant familial ties.
These articles were very insightful and described things I feel like I see and know, but were written like they were really true, that being my only qualm with the article. It generated a very general experience for boys and I wish it would contrast itself to other cultures other than 'Northern'. One of the main points I liked was how boy groups are physically violent with another, not only due to their energy, but in a effort to be close to another man. This is something I feel like I've always seen- when I have been perplexed my friends lack of talking emotionally with each other, there is always a sort of verbal challenge or physical challenge. It also has always created a sort of jealousy in me, that boys seem to 'automatically' make friends since through their work or play in the physical world, yet for a girl to find groups that are emotionally satisifying is much harder because we may not operate in as many physical realms. Also, however it may be the opposite of comradery, the notion of teasing or challenging within boy groups is actually something I find appealing in one sense. On one side there is empathy, and another is to challenge one another, and I feel as though men and women have either one of these often with groups of friends. For me, to challenge your friends is to also show you care for them, and also displays a sort of comfort.