JB TIMES 6TH EDITION
GENDER CONTENT LETS TALK ABOUT...
DEFINING GENDER INTERSECTIONALITY GENDER IN POLITICS THE PATRIARCHY AND HOW IT AFFECTS US ALL THE OUTLIER FACTOR- GENDER TOXIC MASCULINTY @juniorbranch.times
DEFINING GENDER When we talk about gender, not all people know what it exactly refers to, how it is not interchangeable with «sex», but especially if, and eventually how, the two are related. In this article I wish to introduce this theme with a brief historical focus and continue with understanding how sex and gender is conceived in scientific disciplines nowadays. Despite so, the widespread conviction is that people’s identity is rooted in the “essential biological reality" of sex, which is taught as binary —either male or female, functionally to reproductive roles — and that the two present different psychological and behavioral traits. These beliefs are based on biological determinism which was originated between the XVIII and XIX century: this theory considers human behavior as being directly controlled by an individual's genes or some component of their physiology —simply put:«biology is destiny»— at the expense of the role of the environment and social context. It was used to legitimize racism and slavery (racial essentialism) as well as withholding civil and political rights from women, in order to maintain power and control over them. Although the differentiation between men and women has changed and blurred in time, our cognition is still affected by this cultural heritage. Before the second half of the XX century, the term «gender» was associated with nouns and pronouns in grammatical categorization as feminine or masculine. Starting in the Fifties, phycologists such as Robert Stoller and John Money adopted it to refer to the amount of femininity and masculinity a person exhibited separately from their sex (which involves their biological features). Separating these terms seemed to make theoretical sense allowing to explain the phenomenon of transsexuality: to them, transexuals' sex and gender simply didn't match (Mikkola; 2017, 1.1). Later we will understand if this is the correct way of putting it. Between the Sixties and the end of the Seventies, second-wave feminist intellectuals started using the term «gender» to argue the cultural origins of the differences between men and women and that the reason for disparity between sexes and subordination of women had nothing to do with their biological characteristics. One of the greatest feminist thinkers in the western world and author of The Second Sex (1949), a milestone of the feminist critical philosophy which reflects on the female condition as a male subordinate, Simone De Beauvoire, theorized the socialization of gender: the educational process whereby females acquire feminine traits and learn feminine behavior (likewise for men); thereby masculinity and femininity are considered to be products of nurture or how individuals are brought up. This is a clear critique of biological determinism, which attributes the two archetypes—femininity and masculinity— respectively to males and females, and considers them as inherently part of one’s biological heritage. In this context were formulated different theories about gender as determined by a variety of individual, social and cultural factors rather than biological characteristics. Today, social learning theorists understand that we are socialized as men or women by a huge array of different influences, among which parental activity has a primary role: parents often unconsciously treat their female and male children differently. When parents have been asked to describe their 24-hour old infants, they have done so using gender-stereotypic language: boys are described as strong, alert, and coordinated where as girls as tiny, soft, and delicate. Parents' treatment of their infants further reflects these descriptions whether they are aware of this or not (Renzetti & Curran 1992, 32). There are more obvious aspects of gender socialization: children are often dressed in gender-stereotypical clothes and colors (boys are dressed in blue, girls in pink) and parents tend to buy their children gender-stereotypical toys. They also (intentionally or not) tend to reinforce certain ‘appropriate’ behaviors. Children are also profoundly influenced by what they observe, in this case the behavior of others, which not only they learn to replicate and to identify with, but also learn to enforce “gender appropriate” behavior on others while growing up.
Like mentioned earlier, the term «sex» is not interchangeable with «gender», although we are educated to follow gender roles and norms based on the sex we are assigned at birth. Sex is a label — male or female — that you’re assigned by a doctor based on the genitals you’re born with and the chromosomes you have. But Sex actually refers to a wide range of biological and anatomical characteristics — other than genitals, and general reproductive sexual anatomy, chromosomes, gene expression, hormone levels, and function, that are not taken into consideration. Although sex is taught as being either male and female — functionally to the reproduction— many activists and medical professionals have been working towards a more inclusive knowledge, educating about the diverse ways sex can present in humans. Sex should be considered as existing on a spectrum: many people’s bodies possess a combination of physical characteristics typically associated with being male or female. When someone’s sexual and reproductive anatomy doesn’t seem to fit the typical definitions of female or male, they may be described as intersex. Intersexual people may present genitals or internal sex organs that fall outside the male/female categories — such as a person with both ovarian and testicular tissues— or they may be born with external genitals that fall into the typical male/female categories, but their internal organs or their hormonal production don’t; there can be combinations of chromosomes that are different than XY (usually associated with male) and XX (usually associated with female), like XXY. Being intersex is a naturally occurring variation in humans, and it isn’t inherently a medical problem, however when a child is born with ambiguous genitalia, doctors commonly recommend reconstructive surgery to align their sex more closely to typical male or female anatomy, following a socially normative necessity, rather than proved medical and health reasons. The organization Planned Parenthood, America’s most trusted provider of reproductive health care and sex education, has a critical stance towards the commonly used term «biological sex»: Some people call the sex we are assigned at birth “biological sex”. But this term doesn’t fully capture the complex biological, anatomical, and chromosomal variations that can occur […]»(both at birth as well as while growing up and developing sex) «[…]having only two options (biological male or biological female) might not describe what’s going on inside a person’s body. Instead of saying “biological sex,” some people use the phrase “assigned male at birth” or “assigned female at birth.” This acknowledges that someone — often a doctor — is deciding for someone else. The assignment of biological sex may or may not align with what’s going on with a person’s body, how they feel, or how they identify. Some professionals are extremely critical of this theory, and they affirm that sex in a person is defined functionally based on the type of gamete (sex cell, sperm or ova) that forms the basis for an individual’s reproductive anatomy, it is determined by their primary sex organs. What seems to be less debatable is the problematic aspect of surgeries and “genital correction” performed on intersex people before they’re old enough to consent it, and that the societal notion that there is only one narrow way for male or female sex to look like. If «sex» denotes human females and males depending on biological features, «gender» denotes women and men depending on social factors (social role, position, behavior or identity). The following definitions are provided by different established and prestigious institutions, and I believe can help gain familiarity with a few concepts. Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls, and boys that are socially constructed. This includes norms, behaviors, and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl, or boy, as well as relationships with each other. As a social construct, gender varies from society to society and can change over time. -World Health Organization Gender refers to the attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that a given culture associates with a person’s biological sex[…]Gender identity is a component of gender that describes a person’s psychological sense of their gender. Many people describe gender identity as a deeply felt, inherent sense of being a boy, a man, or male; a girl, a woman, or female; or a non-binary gender (e.g., genderqueer, gender-nonconforming, gender-neutral, a gender, gender-fluid) -American PsychologicalAssociation
We understand that Gender is a social and legal status which is associated with one’s sex, and that defines the set of expectations and norms we are supposed to respect and perform. Gender identity corresponds to a person’s deeply-felt alignment with a gender, which can be the one they were taught to identify with between masculine and feminine, none of the two, both of them, or somewhere in the middle. Judith Butler, American philosopher and academic, author of Gender Trouble (1990), theorized that gender identity «is a performative accomplishment», meaning that it is created through a repetition of acts and learned behaviors, compelled by social sanctions and taboos (legal and medical enforcing of gender norms as well as people policing each other about their gender). It also means that it produces a series of effects: we act, walk, speak and talk in ways that consolidate an impression of what being a man or being a woman is. «We act as if that being of a man or that being of a woman is actually an internal reality or something that is simply true about us, a fact about us, but actually it’s a phenomenon that is being produced all the time and reproduced all the time, so to say gender is performative is to say that nobody really is a gender from the start.» - Judith Butler at Big Think Not everyone is able to perform and feel comfortable with the gender they’re assigned, and required to perform, many people are not aligned with the gender they were attributed. It is the case of transgender people (trans- is a latin adjective which means «on the other side of»), whereas cisgender people (cis- , «on this side») experience a gender identity which matches the gender they were assigned. Transgender is an umbrella term, which includes a variety of experiences of gender - ex. gender non-binary, a gender, gender-fluid, etc.
Conclusion Gender diversity has existed throughout history and all over the world. As one of the most fundamental aspects of a person’s identity, gender deeply influences every part of one’s life. Where this crucial aspect of self is narrowly defined and rigidly enforced, individuals who exist outside of its norms face innumerable challenges. Even those who vary only slightly from norms can become targets of disapproval, discrimination, and even violence. Questioning the gender binary — the understanding of gender as determined by one’s biology; a set of norms which only starts with the expectation that a person will necessarily be comfortable with and able to perform their (assigned) gender— must become a daily effort. Norms that are transmitted to us daily by the media, movies, as well as by our parents, and that we perpetuate in everyday choices, are norms that prescribe what we must do in order to be a man or a woman. We must relentlessly negotiate with them. Some of us are passionately attached to these standards, and embody them with ardor; others, however, refuse them or simply are not capable of “fitting in”. LGBTQIA+ people particularly experience trauma from the consequences of not being able to perform and respect social norms and standards of gender (and sexuality, and much more). Definitions and “labels” have been fundamental for self discovery in contexts in which LGBTQIA+ people have been/are forced to perform a gender and to respect norms. If words are the tool through which human beings recognize, learn and understand things, talking about gender and using definitions such as the ones mentioned earlier not only is necessary to individuate and unpack these social issues, it is also fundamental to people who openly identify as LGBTQIA+ or that simply feel like they’re not represented by those norms, to be able to assert their identity in a society that forces inescapable boundaries. Filippo Valcarenghi CISV Italy (Milano) For further content I suggest you look into: "Ending the straight world order: Mads Ananda Lodahl at TEDxCopenhagen."
INTERSECTIONALITY: Why should we all take it in consideration while tackling gender studies? When assessing what in sociology we call “critical theories” (which provide bases for social inquiry and analysis aimed at social equality, implying a call for change), we are brought to look at them as different parallel paths towards equality: Gender Studies, Marxist theories, Studies on Race and Ethnicity, Queer studies, etc. But if we analyze social reality, we realize that all that regards the life and mostly the experiences, that actual individuals go through, are not divided in different “strings”, but happen simultaneously. Here is where the concept of Intersectionality, and therefore of intersectional perspective to science, methodology, law, psychology and politics, comes into place.
Intersectionality, as defined by the Italian sociologists Enzo Colombo and Paola Rebughini in 2016, is the “simultaneous experience of more social categories called minorities”; which means that intersectional analysis looks at those points of intersection that we could define as of “multiple discrimination” (i.e. the negative set of behavior and experiences that can affect those who happen to belong to more categories of oppression: minorities such as women, non-white people, people belonging to the LGBTQIAP+ community, overweight people, disabled people, economically disadvantaged people, etc).
People who are recognized as being part of more than one of these categories experience a multiplication of discrimination and oppression and are the so called “intersectional subjects”: those individuals, those living, breathing human beings whose stories have been long neglected by all critical theories. This has changed in 1989, when the US lawyer and philosopher Kimberlé Crenshaw first coined the term Intersectionality as a way to theorize and tackle multiple discrimination. The origins of intersectional methodology and studies though, surely rely on critical theories, and above all on different kinds of feminist theories.
Getting closer to the core point of this article, all the experiences of people belonging to the same category (women for example), are not the same. As human identity is more than complex, so needs to be the its analysis. Going back to the origins of Intersectionality, they can be traced back to three main feminist perspectives: Black feminism, Queer feminism, and Marxist feminism. All these theoretical frameworks link female experience with other categories: gender and race, gender and sexual orientation, gender and class. We can notice from here that the pieces are starting to come together: even if these categories all start from female experience, they can be looked at from different perspectives. What if we put all those perspectives together? What we get is intersectional analysis. The analysis of the intersection of categories of oppression on a single individual. Can we define the life experience of a rich, white, cis, woman as the same as that of a poor, black, trans woman? Can we consider them as equal just because of them sharing the belonging to a single category of discrimination (gender)? The answer in my opinion is no. This is why we should always “look at society with an intersectional eye”, to realize that human experience is not simple, is not black or white, and it is by looking at the spectrum of the grays that we truly can understand it and do our best to change it for better, “for a more just and peaceful world”. Cloe Caricone, CISV Italy.
Gender in politics Does gender impact one's political chances? This article mainly focuses on the western part of the world and Latin America.
By Laura Oblak, JB Slovenia
INTRO Democracy is, by definition, a system of government by the whole population, typically through elected representatives. However, we can hardly talk about democracy when there is half of the world's population (women) excluded from the highest functions of decision-making, specifically in the field of politics. Who will advocate for women's rights, if they are not in the position of doing it themselves, since that very field has one of the, if not the biggest, impact on people's lives? The lack of female representatives in high political functions directly results in women not having candidates that have a deeper understanding of this exact problem or to present the problem itself. [1]
GENERAL (REPRESENTATION) Sociologists Renzetti and Curran indicate four possible reasons for the monopoly of men over high political functions:
1 - Difficulty to get rid of behavioural and thought patterns gained during primary and secondary socialization. 2 - Imbalance in distribution between professional and private life. 3 - Women used to be less able to participate in politics due to lack of education. 4- Women fear discrimination from public (voters) and colleagues in advance, which obstructs them from running. [2] Here the question why politics is mainly represented by men occurs: The right of voting was bestowed to women much later than it was to men. Up until this day in most societies women were primarily expected to take on their ''natural'' roles as wives/mothers/housewives and are still being connected to bio-social reproduction to a greater degree than men are. Rather than incorporating more female members in politics and giving them recognition, some members of western society still try to justify the unequal political distribution with gender-based natural roles. This is why even in the field of politics women are often seen in roles that do not permit easy access to organization, money, important contacts, etc. and their roles are normally more isolating and not too politically active. [3] Women's career path is more difficult, since beliefs or excuses such as "women are not interested in politics" have been a part of our society for some time now, despite powerful feminist movements addressing the exact opposite. What are the actual obstacles in achieving the highest positions when female? Although it may not seem that way, there is a glass ceiling effect, defining pervasive resistance to the effort of women and minorities to reach top ranked functions, despite being well qualified and deserving. The truth is men and women participate in and hold political functions, however the highest positions are almost always entrusted to men. [1]
DATA According to a survey of US adults, in 2018, most say "women and men are equally capable of handling key policy areas''. Others tended to say "women having to do more to prove themselves is a major barrier to female leadership''. 61% percent of Americans would agree that women having to do more to prove themselves than men, is a major reason why women are underrepresented in high political offices. A majority of women (and roughly one-third of men) also point to gender discrimination and voters not being ready to elect women as a major barrier for achieving gender parity in politics. [4]
ROLES, EXPECTATIONS, MEDIA, DISCREDITATION Despite the increasing presence of women in politics, gender stereotypes still exist and are highly present in our subconscious minds and actions. People can think this way due to discreditation of women so it is perceived as if they are not as capable. Research in the US showed that both male and female voters, regardless of their political persuasions, expected men to operate better as politicians than women. [5] What are voters' or rather general other expectations? Both genders are required to act certain ways in order to be perceived as capable, trust-worthy and benevolent. Being assertive and ambitious mostly hurts woman's chances of getting ahead in politics, whereas man usually benefit from those qualities. For women it is rather helpful being physically attractive, for men appearance is not of such importance in politics. Showing emotions seems to do more bad than good for both genders, however it does less harm to men. [4] All this is based on people's, actually voters' reaction. Do people create those images themselves, or are they consumed from media presentations? Indeed, there is gender bias in the amount of coverage of politicians, where women politicians lag behind men in media attention. The content of media reports on political candidates, such as the amount of attention to private life, is differently portrayed according to the gender of the candidate and includes or is based on gender stereotypes. Overall, women politicians receive more attention to their appearance and personal life, and are overall more negatively portrayed than men. [6]
IMPROVEMENT There have been significant advances in women's political representation around the world in recent years, especially in national parliaments where the world average of women nearly doubled from 11.3 to 22.1 percent in the last two decades. Countries in Latin America and the Caribbean surpass all others (apart from five Nordic countries) with an average of more than 25 % women in congress. In 1997 the closest to reaching equality were European countries, established democracies with longer history of women's political rights, but the situation has changed drastically. In 2015 Sweden and Finland stayed among the successful countries, though the majority of the countries at the very top are located in Latin America and Africa. Despite progress, developments are still far from reflecting equal representation. How to achieve gender parity in political representation? Several strategies used for promoting women in politics and consequently achieving equal distribution are gender quotas (regulation that requires minimum percentage of each gender among candidates), political financing regulations and even law criminalizing violence against women in politics. Strategies could also be simpler, for example making politics a more attractive job for for women, to empower women who have been elected. [7]
The Patriarchy and how it affects us all Since we are kids we are taught what "our place" is, what we can do, and the roles we will have in society. It could seem as banal as the color of the clothes we wear, the kind of toys we have, and even the conduct we should "have" according to our gender. However, it is not that simple, these conceptions are rooted in the patriarchy. In summary, we can define patriarchy as the way the world is organized, based on gender. It assigns to men the role of leaders and to women the role of followers. It is a social organization based on domination. Contrary to what is usually thought, the patriarchy not only affects women, it also affects men. The patriarchy is everywhere and defines the way we look at the world, the way we conceive reality. For example, patriarchy affects the way we think about family. Normally, the father is at the head of the family, the mother behind him, and the children underneath. It is the father who brings the money back home and the mother who does the housework and raises the children. In other words, the father commands and the mother follows. This structure can be replicated in other levels, such as the government or enterprises, where men lead, and women follow orders. In the end, men are the ones who take decisions and shape the way that things are done. Therefore, if we consider that this organization can be replicated in every aspect of our lives, it is no wonder it affects the way that we, as a society, conceive the world. Subconsciously, we are used to seeing men as authority figures and women as subordinates, leading us to consider men as superior to women. It also makes us think of what everyone should do and how they should behave. Now, it is important to emphasize that patriarchy is not only about male domination or men having the highest positions and leadership. Patriarchy is based on a predetermined categorization that is imposed on society, where characteristics of who dominates and who is dominated are imposed. For example, either you are a leader or a follower, you are strong or weak, you are cool or emotional. If you meet the first characteristics of each pair, you dominate, while if you meet the second ones, you are dominated, independently of your gender. Yet it is expected to be men the ones who possess the first characteristics, otherwise, they are called "gay", "girl", etc., as if those words were insults! But if women possess them, we are told that we must go back to “our place”.
According to the patriarchy, women must be delicate, stay at home to take care of the children and do the housework, do what men ask us to, stay silent and listen, and accept the place where we were born at. Nevertheless, the expectations are not only shaped by how a woman must be, but also about how a man must be: patriarchy determines how the "ideal" man is and establishes the concept of masculinity. Men must be strong, hide their feelings and affections, support their family, protect their territory, be the best in everything and win every time. If they don’t, they have failed as “real man”, but what is a “real man” anyway? Isn’t it a concept invented by society to organize itself? Why can’t a woman or a man be however they want without being called out for it?
Consequently, it can be noted that patriarchy affects us collectively. Because of it, we are classified and limited from the day we are born. We are expected to direct our lives through the path that has previously been marked for us instead of the one we decide. Those are the rules we "must" follow. The assignation of gender roles only reduces our possibilities and limits our field of vision. The jobs we should do, how we should look, how we should react in certain situations, whether we are allowed to ask for help or not, if we can raise our voice and speak up our minds, if we can express ourselves in a certain way, if we can love someone… Simply if we can BE.
Alejandra Villagómez Chávez, Mexico
THE MOST OUTLIER FACTOR By Alessia Rivera, JB Mexico
Since the day we are born, there are several factors that will affect us for the rest of our lives. Some people are tall, some are prone to be overweight, some have lighter skin, some have darker skin, some aren't able to make use of their legs, some come from a difficult economic situation, some are the youngest of several kids, some communicate in a language not very known by others, some have curly hair, some have red hair, some represent a minority, some posses certain privilege, some write with their left hand, some with their right, and some, can’t even write at all. There is an infinity of factors that make us who we are; factors that pre-condition the way we will be viewed and treated in the world. Nevertheless, a factor that can never be ignored is the gender we are born into, or identify with. More specifically, we cannot ignore what it means to be a woman. Although this should not affect how our lives may be, it does; it affects us in many more ways than we think. So to you I ask, ¿what are the implications of being a woman? Women have historically been in a disadvantaged position compared to men. It is not long ago that our voice started being heard. We have been silenced and oppressed since the beginning of time. We cannot deny that we have come a long way, nonetheless we still have a longer way to go. Being in the globalized society we are in today, we may think that factors that separated men and women long ago are gone, but they are in fact not. Just because we are seeing more women as public officials, reporters, authors, athletes, artists, academics, entertainers, CEOs, scientists, professors, models, engineers, doctors, as any existent possibility, does NOT mean we have equal prospects and rights. When women work hard to obtain these titles or professions, they are still viewed as less valuable than their male counterparts. When women take interest in whichever activity or hobby, they are viewed as “silly”, as if they were not really interested or capable of taking part of this activity. Women are constantly bombarded with questions to prove the validity of their actions and, or, passions while men can enjoy the privilege of being taken seriously.
Society has tricked women into believing they should be grateful for the opportunities they are getting, yet nobody warned them the conditions they would come with. They say: “women have the freedom to feel safe going anywhere they’d like”, yet 1 of every 5 women has been sexualy assaulted; “women can present themselves however they prefer”, yet people will take the liberty of judging them by their appearance, and more often than not, sexualize them; “women can be successful in the field of their choosing”, yet society tries to pin women that are similar “against each other” because there isn’t room for many successful women; “women can have lives just as good as those of men ”, yet thousands are killed, raped, kidnapped, sold, trafficked on a daily basis. There are countless examples of hardships women face on a day to day basis. One could try to assimilate situations like the ones mentioned above, and inevitably end up with the conclusion that these are difficult times to be a woman, these are scary times.
Just because it is not happening to you, does not mean it is not happening. As Ángela María Díez, Colombian activist for women’s reproductive rights, once said: “que el privilegio no te nuble la empatía”, which roughly translates to “may privilege not cloud your sense of empathy”. I find this important since many still continue to question the importance of movements like feminism. Let's not get confused, many parts of the world have advanced in the fight towards gender equality, gender justice and obtention of rights. Nevertheless, being a woman will always come with negative implications we often forget, or fail to see. The patriarchal system we live in has normalized many toxic conducts towards women, that should cause anger and distress every time we see them.
It is of utter importance to continue to fight for a safer and accessible world for all women. We need to stop believing gender is no longer a relevant topic. We need to stop pretending our systems and countries are not built around and for men. We need to stop believing we have no control over what role women have in our society. Let's use the tools and knowledge we have acquired to make the world, a woman's world too. Let’s all join the fight of gender not being the most outlier factor.
The minor accumulations of toxic masculinity
are where the problem lies by Fave Daka, Nigeria
On a very mundane Saturday afternoon, I received the news that a very close relative of mine had died. Before letting my emotions get the best of me, I called my uncle to confirm as well as gauge what the general mood back home was like. The moment was solemn with a heavy silence that was bleak, almost unsettling. There was no longer the jubilance and chatter that I was used to whenever I called home. My uncle was in the living room, on loudspeaker, as he began to explain the situation, trying as much as he could to give context to what might have been the cause of death, the suddenness of it all, and the sheer shock that engulfed family and friends, so much so that I too was disoriented despite being approximately 8,889 kilometers away. As the conversation progressed, my uncle asserted that ‘all was well’ on his end and that my aunties and the various other women of the house were the ones having a hard time dealing with the recent death. Death is very profound in that it is something that we must all come to terms with. Grief, however, is participatory. It was odd, indeed very confusing, that my uncle had chosen to limit his grieving in order to uphold his image as the ‘man of the house’. Surely, he too must have been having a hard time dealing with this. Surely, at least one day of grieving would not have been too detrimental to his image. The concept of masculinity comes with a range of physical and emotional expressions. To be like a man, and to therefore uphold masculinity, is to be unwaveringly chivalrous, unwaveringly strong, unwaveringly emotionless, and unwaveringly dominant. The masculinity doctrine leaves no room to be anything but unwavering: You must be the breadwinner, you must always be dependable, you must be the head of the house. As a doctrine, men are required, if not forced, to be a mechanical representation of leadership that is uncomfortable at best and incredibly toxic at worst.
Toxic masculinity therefore is when this doctrine is pushed to its most extreme. The violence that results often spreads widely, bearing a deleterious impact on the individual as well as surrounding others. Statistics on the side effects of toxic masculinity are grim. Globally, men are more likely to commit suicide than women, men are more likely to experience drug overdose, men are more likely to be perpetrators of sexual and domestic violence. This is all the side effects of a demand to produce a form of masculinity that overemphasizes aggression, the suppression of emotions, hyper-independence, violence, and domination.
That toxic masculinity is a harmful doctrine, however, should be no news at all. For centuries, patriarchal ways of life have damaged women as well as non-conforming individuals, with various techniques and tools created to encourage toxic masculinity for the sake of euphoria. I say euphoria because it seems to me that the thrill of domination is the only sensical explanation for why anyone, be they under the pressure of peers or not, would want to be toxically masculine. Indeed, it could be that because of how deeply entrenched this form of behaviour has become in a maledominated society, many engage in it because they feel they have to. Regardless, there must be a thrill, there must be a level of relative euphoria one feels unless such a set of behaviours would not be as consistently reproduced as they have been over this long a period of time. My uncle when contrasting his own emotional brevity with that of the other supposedly deeply emotional women of the house must have been thrilled, unless he would have noticed how harmful it was that he had chosen not to considerably grieve the loss of an important family member. Banal as it may have seemed to him, this episode showcased to me the extent to which toxic masculinity manifests. If it can cause an individual to actively disengage from the most human form of commemoration and respect there is, believing that they are upholding their honor and strength by doing so, then indeed, toxic masculinity is a deeply detrimental indoctrination that, amongst all things, demands men to be inhumane. It is nonetheless thrilling. And it is this pernicious excitement that does the dialectical work of harming and encouraging individuals, like my uncle, to uphold toxic masculinity. The societal impact of toxic masculinity is evidenced in all spheres of life, but looking at the example of my uncle, I am led to believe that toxic masculinity is more often quiet before it is loud. The most generic solutions for toxic masculinity include encouraging men to be vulnerable and soft and emotive. Benevolent a goal as these are, they are inadequate because they ignore the mute accumulation of events and expectations, as well as the euphoria that keeps toxic masculinity running. Alongside encouraging vulnerability, softness, and expression, focus must be placed on unwinding the cascade of deleterious ecstasy that is considered a reward whenever men do perform toxic masculinity. When such euphoria is disincentivized, then the creating of spaces of vulnerability and softness becomes both feasible and universally sustainable. Moreover, in analyzing my uncle’s response, I had indeed ignored the ways I myself had discarded my own emotions when choosing to check on my family before I had processed my own feelings. I perhaps would have been a better source of comfort had I not chosen to limit my own initial grief in the first place. I must thus reiterate that what makes toxic masculinity so dangerous is not only the statistics on domestic violence, or the catcalling, or the pressure on men to be ‘like a man,’ but it is also the seemingly inconsequential moments when men feel that they must ignore their emotions in order to uphold the noble (read: thrilling) position of being depended upon. This most often manifests in minor ways, but it is unwavering, and its accumulated effect is devastating.
A MESSAGE FROM THE JB TIMES Thank you so much for reading our edition, we hope you enjoyed and learned something new! The JB Times believes there are still many issues to cover and discuss on this topic, but we are excited to start some new conversations. Feel free to share with anyone you think would appreciate this edition, or could benefit from the information in it!
If you are interested in working with us in the future, don't hesitate on contacting us, we would love to get fresh and new ideas/articles!
@juniorbranch.times
jbmexicotimes@gmail.com
References DEFINING GENDER 1- John WilliamMoney, 84, Sexual Identity Researcher, Dies - New York Times 2- Mikkola, Mari, "Feminist Perspectives on Sex and Gender", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2019 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.) 3- Karkazis K. 2019. The misuses of “biological sex”. Lancet394:1898-1899. 4- Liza Brusman,2019, "Sex isn’t binary, and we should stop acting like it is"- Massive Science 5- Shteyler, VadimM. Clarke, JessicaA. Adashi, Eli Y. FailedAssignments — Rethinking Sex Designations on Birth Certificates, New England Journal of Medicine, 2020; 383:2399-2401 6- Colin Wright,2019, On Sex and Gender,The New England Journal of Medicine Has Abandoned Its Scientific Mission - Quillette 7- Gender and Health -World Health Organization 8- Gender, Style and Grammar Guidelines by APA - American Psychological Association Learn: Sex and Gender Identity - Planned Parenthood genderspectrum.org -Judith Butler:Your Behavior CreatesYour Gender | Big Think
GENDER IN POLITICS 1 - Počkar, Mirjam, Tavčar Krajnc, Marina, Birsa, Dare. Sociologija. DZS, 2012. 2 - Renzetti, C. M., Curran D. J. (1995) in Zubković, Ksenja (2008): Spol in politika. [internet]. [cited 23. 02. 2021]. Available on link: http://dk.fdv.uni-lj.si/diplomska/pdfs/Zubkovic-Ksenija.PDF 3 - Jennings, M. Kent. “Gender Roles and Inequalities in Political Participation: Results from an Eight-Nation Study.”
The
Western
Political
Quarterly,
vol.
36,
no.
3,
1983,
pp.
364–385.
JSTOR,
www.jstor.org/stable/448396. Accessed 23 Feb. 2021. 4 – Menasce Horowitz, Igielnik, Parker. “Women and Leadership 2018.” 2018. [internet]. [cited 23. 02. 2021]. Available on link: https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2018/09/20/women-and-leadership-2018/ 5 – Gender Inequality in Politics. (2017). [internet]. [cited 23. 02. 2021]. Available on link: https://courses.lumenlearning.com/cochise-sociology-os/chapter/gender-inequality-in-politics/ 6 – Van der Pas. “Gender Differences in Political Media Coverage: A Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Communication, Volume 70, Issue 1, February 2020, Pages 114–143, https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqz046 7 - Došek. T. and others, Krook M. L. (2017): Palgrave Macmillan US. “Women, Politics, and Democracy in Latin America.: Electoral Quotas and Beyond: Strategies to Promote Women in Politics.” [internet]. [cited 23. 02. 2021]. Available on link: https://www.palgrave.com/gp/book/9781349950089
THE OUTLIER FACTOR- GENDER 8- “Statistics.” National Sexual Violence Resource Center. Accessed March 5, 2021. https://www.nsvrc.org/statistics#:~:text=%E2%80%9CApproximately%201%20in%205%20(21.3,alc ohol%2Fdrug%20facilitated%20completed%20penetration.
For more information or questions on our citations, contact us at jbmexicotimes@gmail.com Edition by Alessia Rivera