To rephrase it, Anzaldua states that when she is up against the wall, she compels herself to create this faculty.” La facultad is the capacity to see in surface phenomena the meaning of deeper realities, to see the deep structure below the surface,” (Anzaldua, 38). This faculty provides a scope that allows her to see institutionalize oppression that emanates from the power males have in society. To that end, the new Mestiza consciousness will be able to see pass the male intention to keep them mental slaves. For all the institutionalize oppression that the new Mestiza undergoes is a result of male domination in modern
According to Pleck (1995) masculinity is being referred to, sets of culturally defined principles of masculinity to which men are expected to hold on (Pleck, 1995). Support of the traditional male roles and norms by individuals, groups and society referred to as the masculinity ideology (Levant, 1995). Thompson and Pleck (1986) noted that a particular collection of dimensions upon which some individuals base their notion of masculinity is masculinity philosophy. However, these dimensions are defined as toughness (in the physical as well as the mental and emotional sense), norms related to status and, finally, the anti-femininity norm. While the dimension of toughness refers to the prospect that men need to be strong, experienced and capable of solving their emotional problems in an appropriate way, the status dimension is defined as labour, economic and professional success, and it is generally associated with a high income (Thompson & Pleck,
Closely related to the idea of gender is the idea of masculinity and femininity. Masculinities can be defined as innate qualities that differ a male from a female however, it translates into culture in the form of specific roles and performances which men have to perform or it is imposed on them (Cornwall, 2010). In abstract terms, masculinity can be understood as something which boys and men do and on the similar lines femininity can also be understood i.e. what women and girls do, more so what women and girls learn to do (Paechter, 2006 and Wesely, 2012). These roles may assign a higher status to men in the power hierarchy irrespective of the fact whether they feel powerful or not.
Connell (1995) coins the concept of hegemonic masculinity. He defines it as the maintenance of gender practice which institutionalizes the domination of men and subordination of women, but argues that such hegemony is not always and everywhere the same. This is because his concept is center on white middle-class heterosexual american and "constructed in relation to women and to subordinate masculinities" (Connell 1987, 186). It is subject to changes that when the conditions for the defence of patriarchy differ, the dominance of certain masculine norms is weakened and there may be a new hegemony existed. Building on the hegemonic masculinity proposed by Connell (1995), five major idealized norms can be identified in American society.
In their article “Fertilization Narratives in the Art of Gustav Klimt, Diego Rivera and Frida Kahlo: Repression, Domination and Eros among Cells”, Scott F. Gilbert and Sabine Brauckmann speak of the different ways in which Klimt, Rivera, and Kahlo represent fertilization in their art. Giblert and Baruckmann observe and note Klimt’s presentation of victory of creativity over repression, Rivera’s depiction of victory of man over procreation, and Kahlo’s demonstration of the continuation of life. Analyzing Klimt’s Danae, the two conclude that Klimt enjoyed depicting the more biological aspect of fertilization, painting blastocysts on Danae’s gown. In the Greek myth, King Akrisios locks up his daughter Danae due to fear of the realization of a prophecy stating he would be killed by his grandson. Akrisios repressed his daughter and his concerns by locking her in a tower.
Connell states that hegemonic masculinity is likely to be established only if there is some correspondence between cultural ideal and institutional power. Using this definition the military men can legitimately make a claim to hegemonic masculinity. As service members they are agents of the state domination, legally vested with the right to use lethal force in order to maintain domination. Similarly, in the case of the Indian army, it may be interesting to see how the army personnel not only represent the ideal masculinity but also use their institutional power in order to establish their masculinity as hegemonic. However, before going further it is also important to understand the distinction between external and internal hegemonic masculinities.
Connell describes hegemonic masculinity as normative, the most exemplary way of being a man, and a position which all other men relate to, which legitimized male domination over women (Connell 832).Military drafting is a discursive practice—a product of hegemonic masculinity, in which uses male conscripts body’s to reproduce ‘maleness’ based on a heteronormative framework in order to maintain its regime. Although hegemonic masculinity cannot be achieved, it continues to produce “tension between what culture wants the male body to be and what the body is or wants to become” (Reeser 101). A thorough analysis of the law aims to prove that the drafting law forces male conscript to practice hegemonic masculinity through promotion of exclusivity
Kimmel focuses on the role of culture in constructing gender roles, particularly in how we define and show masculinity. In his theory, manhood is a concept that is “socially constructed”, “created in culture” and constantly changing (Kimmel 120). Our culture has constructed a concept of manhood with certain requirements, two of which are seen in the interaction among the group of boys. The first is the “flight from women, the repudiation of femininity” (Kimmel 126). This was evidenced by the separation from the girl that was the subject of the first conversation; she was crazy and this was a negative characteristic that they did not have.
They therefore have more power, and harassment is a reflection of that power difference. The sociocultural argument claims that harassment is due more to cultural gender norms than to societal structure, with men being socialized to be aggressive and dominant and women being socialized to be more fearful and submissive. According to the social control theory, men view the public domain as their territory, and they harass to maintain their power as the dominant group and keep women out of the public domain. Additionally, it seems that women have somehow come to be viewed as “open persons.” Erving Goff man (see Bowman, 1993; Gardner, 1995) described “civil inattention” as the way briefly meeting each other’s
Labov (1990) refers to this phenomenon as Principle 1. While in stable sociolinguistic stratification men tend to use covert prestige and a higher frequency of non-standard forms, such as slang and incorrect grammar. Many explanations have been proposed as to why men and women tend to speak in this way. One theory suggests that because men’s occupation supposedly demonstrates their masculine status in society women have to rely on appearances and self-presentation because they have “less access to real power.”( Lodge,1997). According to Romaine (1978) “The females are clearly more concerned with the pressure exerted by local norms and asserting their status with the social structure”.