Week Thirteen: Response 13.3
In Katz’s “Male-Bashing?” chapter, why does he argue
the notion behind using “boys will be boys” to excuse male violence is
profoundly anti-male? How could
one connect Katz’s argument with the “locker room talk” explanation of the
recent Donald Trump scandal?
The excuse that "boys will be boys" is described by Katz as profoundly anti-male, because it implies that all men are inherently sexist, angry beasts who cannot help themselves when it comes to controlling their natural urges and emotions. Naturally, most men are not like the ones who perpetuate this stereotype, in fact, most men are probably uncomfortable with the way that both men and women are represented in our society, but are kept silent by other males in the society through tools such as questioning their manhood and sexuality, though that is a discussion for a different topic. Recently, Feminism has perhaps taken the largest backwards step in its progression since its inception, namely because of the successful election of our current President, President Donald J. Trump. Trump won the presidency largely riding an anti-Progressive wave of hate; mostly targeting minorities and individuals who couldn’t defend themselves. From building a wall to "keep the Mexicans out," to alienating our allies across the Atlantic, Trump promised to put America first and to "Make America Great Again." While some may argue that yes, there are aspects of America's past that are desirable to return to, the majority of America's past is only something great to return to if you are a White, Christian, heterosexual, land-owning male, where the thoughts and opinions of minorities, don't matter. A few months ago, a tape was released showing Trump and a colleague saying derogatory things about women. When it went public, his wife Ivanka dismissed the content of the video as nothing but 'locker-room' talk, conversation between boys, and back again to 'boys will boys.' This shows that even at the highest level of our society, the executive branch of government, this deep-seated anti-female rhetoric permeates our society so much so that it becomes the norm.
ReplyDelete-Christopher D.
Katz’s argues that the notion is profoundly bad because it creates an excuse for violence committed by men. Being a man doesn’t give anybody a permission to commit sexual crimes or misbehave. It does a great disservice to many men in our society who have lived a peaceful life. It also generalizes the whole male population as a aggressive and violent. The bigger problem with this notion is that the boys will be boys argument is used to blame victim in sexual assault. We can see the example at Fox news, where two high ranking executives and host were forced to exit because years of sexual harassment. In the event of Roger Allies ouster from fox news, it was wildly reported that fox news has a boy’s culture where inappropriate comments about women was a very common practice.
ReplyDeleteMany voters saw Donald Trump as a strong men who does not back down on anything. And, we saw the something, in the Hollywood Access tape, where he brags about the sexual harassment. Trump and his campaign defended the video by labeling the conversation as the locker room talk. The problem with this notion is that many athletes who play on NBA and NFL do not talk about the women they know in such a manner. Many prominent athletes fiercely came out against the trump locker room talk narrative. Many Trump surrogates from his wife to his campaign manager argued that Trump was lightly joking in the moment and these are the locker room cheap talks where boys boost about their sexual ability. Trump survived that tape but it begs a bigger question about the culture in our society where we are defending these things as normal behavior of men. It is easy to dismiss as a locker room talk but many women have faced serious sexual harassment in their workplace.
Sesan N.
“Boys will be boys” is the rallying cry of rape culture. Feminazis are accused of being anti-male and male bashers for holding men accountable for their actions and compliance. Yet the phrase boys will be boys is used to try and rationalize male violence. So, you’re saying that men are inherently violent, irrationally angry, and filled with uncontrollable lust? Men are no better than animals acting on base instinct? But I thought women were supposed to be the emotional irrational ones and men were logical and level headed? Sexism you make no sense. You would think men would be insulted by being stereotyped as slaves to their testosterone. By having this excuse that boys will be boys, besides normalizing male violence, it also becomes almost a self fulfilling prophecy. “The more that abusive behavior is rationalized as normal and expected, the more likely it is to occur” (87). Men often blame women for being afraid of them when they should really be angry at the men who give their gender/sex a bad reputation. If men want women to trust them then they need to go after then men who do assault and abuse women instead of normalizing it and sweeping it under the rug.
ReplyDeleteTrump’s rationalization of his degrading and predatory comments was that it was all in good fun. It was “locker room talk” aka boys being boys. But Trump did actually literally sexually assault a good number of women over the decades. He thinks that because he’s a man (especially a “rich and famous” man) that he has the right to women’s bodies. His sense of entitlement is normalized because he’s just a man acting on impulses. Unfortunately because this normalization of uncontrollable lust and violence is so, well, normal the numerous accusations against him did not seem to deter his voters at all.
Rachael M
Jackson Katz argues the phrase, "boys will be boys" as anti-male because it views men as being inherently violent, inherently aggressive, inherently controlling, and more. The too-common figure of speech points towards a boy's inability to overcome his biologically determined need to be violent toward others, especially women. The deep acceptance of male behavior within our culture prevents us from seeing it as what we would normally characterize as unwanted in isolation. In October of last year, 11-year-old audio of then president-elect Donald Trump was released—the content being of a vulgar and sexual nature. He was recorded alluding to wanting to kiss, grope, and have sex with the female host of the show giving him a behind-the-scenes look at the "Day of Our Lives" set. When news broke of what the prospective politician had said all those years ago, there were two parties—one that expressed utter disgust, and another that was supportive and wrote off the content of what Trump had said as typical of private male conversation. To an extent, what the supportive public was saying was that "boys will be boys," "men will be men," and "Trump will be Trump." How can we possibly punish a historically masculine, aggressive womanizer? The recorded audio gave the unknowing public a glimpse into what is apparently common in the masculine world. Not only is physical violence commonplace, but so is verbal. The defending argument expressed that though Trump said such things, he did not act on it nothing resulted from the words said. This is the problem, however. Constant forgiveness for undesired male behavior has perpetuated the use of language and force against women, namely without their knowledge; and the claim against it being viable evidence in how to judge a potential president should fall flat. Regardless of position and company, we should not be so used to such expressions of seemingly assumed male dominance over women that reprieve is granted in the form of successful election.
ReplyDeleteAlyssa W.
The idea of anything being “anti-male” in our society seems like such a foreign concept, however, the common phrase “boys will be boy” is inherently suggesting something that is actually working against males. This simple phrase, or excuse, writes off many abilities that all humans have; it belittles a male's brain. The phrase is most commonly used when young boys are “rough housing”, and using this phrase to excuse their behavior is implying that violence in males is actually biologically natural. While using “boys will be boys” seems harmless when they are just wrestling, this phrase in being embedded into their brain, and the world around them. Assuming males are hardwired to be violent also links the assumption that they are hardwired to rape. This leads into the victim blaming that comes with male induced violence against women. There questions that come up are typically “What was she wearing? Was she drunk? Did she lead him on?”, and these entirely reinforce the idea that “boys will be boys”. The phrase releases males from any responsibility for their actions, while also comparing them to animals and uncontrollable beasts that do not have any capacity to look at logic or reason. This phrase blatantly suggests that males are genetically wired to be the predators and women are genetically wired to see the victims.
ReplyDeleteYou see this concept being reinforced in many films, but slasher films do this the most. The killer is almost always a male who cannot control his rage, and who takes it out on the screaming female who generally has little to no agency within the film. The only time a female has agency in these films is when she transforms into the “Final Girl”, however, to do so, she takes on traits that are dubbed as masculine. These traits are what she uses to survive and to kill the original killer. There is a power shift between the two, the original male becomes feminine and is killed, while the original female becomes masculine and does the killing. This suggests the violence in inherently a male trait. Another time you see this concept being put to work is when the audio of Donald Trump bragging about sexual harassment was released. In order to explain himself, he boiled it down to “locker room talk”, as did many of his supporters. However, this is not just “locker room talk”. Even before he took control of this country, he was a powerful man, and him saying these things makes others assume that they can also say such things, as well as repeat his actions. He oversimplified what actually happened, and boiled it down to make it seem like it was not actually a problem when really the message he sent out was an approval message for men to give into their “natural instincts”.
Assuming that men are just hardwired to be violent dehumanizes them and allows them to grow up in a world where they get to treat women unfairly and get away scott free. It oversimplifies their behavior and completely ignores other details about it. Men, in their natural fit of rage, are able to make decisions about where the violence happens and how it happens. This concept strongly disproves the “boys will be boys” idea that is linked to the “they can’t help it” idea.
Tessa B.
In Tough Guise 2, Jackson Katz explores the hyper-masculine world that young boys grow up in and how it relates to violence and aggressive behavior in adulthood. Pop culture teaches boys and men that in order to be successful, they must be invulnerable, aggressive, and extremely masculine. To falter from these even in the slightest results in shame and exile from peers. Katz gives examples such as the strained father-son relationship in How to Train Your Dragon, where the boy is expected to grow up to be a tough manly hunter like his father and is shamed when he fails to meet these expectations. Popular culture tells these stories time and again, reinforcing the ideas that boys and men must act a certain way in order to gain acceptance. However, there are some occurrences in pop culture where boys and men are allowed to be vulnerable. Steven Universe, an animated show on Cartoon Network, has many examples of male characters being vulnerable without criticism. The main character, Steven, and his father Greg have a refreshingly healthy relationship that involves discussing their feelings and helping each other through the tough parts of life. Steven and Greg bond through talks about Stevens late mother and the pain they feel due to their loss. In one episode, Greg opens up, saying "I lost someone very important to me, too. I miss her every single day, and I think about her all the time. But she's never coming back. That feeling can be so hard to be okay with." In another, he reacts to Stevens anger in a way that is the opposite of the tough-guy approach we are used to in father figures, when he says "Whoa, whoa, whoa! Watch the four letters, schtuball. Hate's a strong word." Greg teaches Steven about dealing with his emotions in a healthy way and discourages him from letting his anger get the best of him. Throughout the show Steven often cries or tears up, both when he is sad and when he is happy. Emotional vulnerability is a key part of Stevens character, and this successfully fits in to a story about a young boy who also goes on exciting adventures and fights evil. Male characters do not always have to be shamed out of exposing any hint of vulnerability. Steven Universe shows that father-son relationships can include vulnerability and that boys and men can handle their emotions without resorting to anger first.
ReplyDelete-Sara D.
Jackson Katz contends that, “the argument that “boys will be boys,” actually carries the profoundly anti-male implication that we should expect bad behavior from boys and men.” (Katz, 2006, Pg. 86) The saying “boys will be boys” perpetuates the belief that despite the severity of their actions, they should not be reprimanded because it’s just in their nature. Society’s fixation on excusing male violence and oppression is detrimental to the development of a society where women are not treated as second class citizens. The bitter reality of it is, the passive enforcement of punishment for boy’s actions contributes to the learned behavior that it is okay for boys to commit acts of violence, sexism, and so on because it’s not their fault they are innately driven to commit acts of violence. Jackson Katz, further states that, “the assumption is that they are somehow not capable of acting appropriately, or treating girls and women with respect. (Katz, 2006, Pg. 86) As boys develop through the progression of learned behavior of what is deemed acceptable or not, the consistent dissemination of little to no consequences for the actions of young boys carry into adulthood. An unfortunate example of this in effect is the Commander-in-Chief, Donald Trump. When news surfaced of Donald Trump’s extremely lewd comments about his sexual harassment of women, the public appeared to merely pass it off as yet another ridiculous thing Trump did. He attempted to reconstruct his public image by merely passing it off as “locker room talk.” His unapologetic approach to his acts merely reinforces Katz’s notion that it’s a disservice to both boys and men to cast off their violent acts as excusable. Overall, sayings like “boys will be boys,” are the root cause for why violence and the invisibility of men are prevalent in society to this day. Instead of hardwiring their brain with this ill-conceived misconception, teaching boy’s behavior that contributes to their development as men is much more beneficial, and will help aid in the prevention of male violence. Men will Trump over Male Violence, if sayings like “boys will be boys,” become nonexistent.
ReplyDeleteDorothy I.