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.