I was interested to come across a chapter called, "The Descent of Men," with a very silly and unstimulating quote at the top... "There are more girls in college now than guys--which from my point of view is great!" --Sam, 18, freshman at UC Santa Cruz. I cynically began reading this chapter, but stopped when I came across this profoundly interesting quote on page 166:
"Unfortunately, boys don't have the abundance of positive media role models that girls have had in recent years. The hypermasculine male is still very much present on television."
Soon after, Kindlon wrote, "When I speak to audiences about boys' psychology, I often ask parents to try to think of three male characters on television that they would like their son to emulate. Parents are surprised by how difficult this is. Male characters on prime-time television tend to be buffoons, while their female counterparts are increasingly clever and capable."
He is right. I am sitting here now, able to list plenty of positive female role models on television and very few, if any, males. The chapter discusses how men are in the decline in areas of education, wealth, and social status. The lack of positive role models for young men on TV is certainly not helping this cause.
Women are on the rise in areas such as education, wealth and social status, while men are on the decline. Is one a necessary result of the other, or is something greater going on here?
Lydia Gray
Interesting question Lydia. I am reminded of one of our readings for the learning logs about the "invisible knapsack." One of my takeaways from that article was the idea that in order to eliminate white privilege, a conscious effort must be made to diminish advantages. The author made a parallel to the way men can acknowledge that women have disadvantages, but generally will not as readily admit that they enjoy excessive advantages.
ReplyDeleteIn the same sense, you've discussed the way women's roles are improving, but at the expense of their male counterparts. I'm not sure that I can begin to pose an answer, but I'm considering this: is there enough room for everyone at the top?
In response to both of your questions, we must assume that equality does not demand the destruction of one group in favor of another. It does require that men "lose" some of the positions that they currently hold, but opportunities abound for success as never before due to the globalized world. Generalizing now, if we are ever to assume that greater equality means a diminished subgroup, then it stigmatizes efforts to equalize opportunity in the world as negative, making the dominant force even more resistant to change. Because there is no desire to entrench dominant groups any further than they undoubtedly will become when they notice their numbers decline, we must understand power not as a zero-sum game, but as ever growing sphere.
ReplyDeleteHey Lydia,
ReplyDeleteI really liked your post. So much, in fact, that I just shared it with my roommate. I asked him to list some positive male characters on TV, and after a couple minutes, the only person he could think of was Jack from LOST. Thinking about the rest of the tv shows he watches, he couldn't think of anyone that he would want his male child to emulate.
Thinking about your post makes me realize that there are so many factors that affect our childhood/upbringing that I have never thought about. Yeah, I have considered violence on tv as having a very real influence on me and on my students, but I never thought about the absence of a positive role model as having an effect.
Regarding Aaron's comment - I think you're right. We can't see "power" in the world today as a zero-sum game. If we do, there will be far too much tension between males/females, different religions, and different race/ethnicities, etc. Power is fluid, people gain and people lose power. If men are "losing" some power right now, or if they are on the decline, let it be. Men have been privileged for many, many years. The same applies to having more and more minorities attending higher education schools these days, and more students from various religion backgrounds.
This stuff happens, and we shouldn't look too much into it.
Austin --
ReplyDeleteI was really intrigued by your response to Lydia's initial post about television characters. Both your comment and Lydia's post got me to thinking about not only sitcom characters, but also TV characters for younger children. Most of the girls in my kindergarten class love Dora the Explorer, an adventurous little girl who is curious about her environment--a pretty good role model. The boys, on the other hand, spend their time watching Power Rangers (who knew that show was even still on?) and Transformers. This "hyper-masculinity" is seen even in role models for these young boys. Perhaps these role models exist somewhere on TV (I hear Dora's cousin Diego is okay!), but my boys are drawn to the unrealistic, hyper-masculine role models anyway. I wonder what implications this has for my male students vs. my female ones at such a young age?
Lydia
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the chapter, I had similar questions about how the role of men will change as alpha women continue to succeed. Kindlon seems to suggest that we have seen a gradual shift in the portrayal of men in the media and will continue to see the shift reflected in college universities and boardrooms. Initially, I thought Kindlon would ultimately state that women and men may share an equal role in society due to alpha girls. However, the chapter seems to show that dominance will continue to dictate our society, which is natural, but not ideal.
Additionally, Kindlon’s observation about the male characters in television is evident, but I’m not sure if the media will have the same lasting effect on men. The media may reflect different gender roles, but the disproportionate earnings and job opportunities continue to reflect male dominance. I hope that alpha girls will continue to compete with males for top positions, but males should not therefore become inferior.