History, biology and symbolism revolving around Masculinity

The image presented clearly presents masculinity based on two significant factors the advertisement portrays. The first, and the most obvious, factor is the image of an assault rifle. The second being the words presented to the viewers: “Consider your man card reissued”. Obviously, based on the text, the advertisement is specifically targeting men to buy weapons. But the important question at hand is, how does men interpret this type of advertisement (or any situation) as symbolic of masculinity?

The words presented to the viewers is, without a doubt, targeting men. “Consider your man card reissued” can have several meanings. Within this blog, I will describe how the physical entity of the gun can relate to the words presented in terms of how the gun represents masculinity through history and how the gun represents masculinity though “doing gender”.

It seems appropriate to view this advertisement in terms of Symbolic interactionism. According to the symbolic interactionist perspective, people attach meanings to symbols, and then they act according to their subjective interpretation of these symbols. Words or visuals serve as the predominant symbols to make this subjective interpretation especially evident. The words have a certain meaning for the “sender,” and, during effective communication, they hopefully have the same meaning for the “receiver.” Symbolic interactionism does not only rely on the words being presented, but also requires intention and interpretation. With that being said, we must understand how an individual or a community of individuals labels what aspects of society as being masculine.

According to Symbolic Interactionism, symbols of masculinity include traits of bravery, courage, and intellect, as well as physical traits of having a beard, deep voice, and muscles. However, based on Symbolic Interactionism, symbols are not limited to the personal traits of the individuals, but also includes the physical entities that enhance the masculinity of the individuals. The assault rifle presents a strong symbol to masculinity based on how society views weapons throughout history. Battles/wars are commonly known to be fought between men, and in war, the “symbolic entities” that enhances how a man should act are: knives, bombs, fists, and guns. In other words, the general term, “aggression”, plays a huge role in the symbolic labeling of masculinity. “Aggression” can branch out to several ideologies (including the physical entities I have just mentioned), but the fact that all of these “symbolic entities” all relate back to aggression, indicates that these entities are part of the concept called masculinity.

So, now that there is an understanding of how guns are portrayed as a source of masculinity due to history. I also want to note how biology plays a huge role in how masculinity is portrayed. The moment of birth, an individual’s “sex” is labeled as man or woman. This labeling is based on the genitalia the individual has. Then gender is “constructed” based on how society interprets how a man or woman should develop. Society influences how a man or woman should act based on a reward/punishment system; society approves of what are considered appropriate actions for a man/woman (i.e. boys play with action figures and as a result, have many “boy” friends), and those that are not appropriate, comes with some sort of punishment (i.e. boys play with dolls and as a result, do not have friends). But the construction of gender (or “doing gender”) all relates back to the “sex” of the individual; our first interpretation of the “gender blue-print” that a child should follow is based on their sex. So with that in mind, it would seem reasonable to state that the assault rifle not only symbolizes “aggression” (which is a symbolic form of masculinity), but also symbolizes the male genitalia. Why would the assault rifle represent the male’s genital? The gun has a similar “physical structure” as the male genital, and similar metaphorical actions (i.e. “bigger packs a harder punch”). These similarities allow for the man to relate to the gun as part of their lifestyle, and thus allow men to interpret that the gun is important representation of masculinity.

So, with all that has been said about how Symbolic Interactionism relates the advertisement to masculinity, I want to ask the question: with the growing number of females participating in these so-called, "man-wars", can the advertisement only be targeting men?

Conflict Theory and Gender Inequality

In mind the Gap: Gender Pay inequality in America (http://youtu.be/mrXKx03QxL0v),  BBC enlightens viewers that even though the Equal Pay Act was passed, gender inequality still exist in the workplace. Furthermore, Fatima Goss Graves, Vice President for Education and Employment at the NWLC states that, inequality still exist due to discrimination and the concentration of low-pay jobs. It is absolutely true that discrimination plays a huge role in gender inequality; but understanding how discrimination came to exist is necessary to explain the persistence of inequality, not just in the work place, but within the functions of society. This inequality can be explained in many ways, but my view is going to be concentrated specifically on the conflict theory. For a better understanding of the Conflict Theory, please watch the given light video:

According to Conflict Theory, society is defined by the struggle for dominance between social groups that compete for resources. In relationship to gender, Conflict theory explains that gender inequality came to exist because the men are trying to maintain power and privilege at the cost of the women’s benefit. What do I mean by this? If we take a quick tour of the history of the United States, it is quite obvious that men are continually seen to be the dominant group in society; in a hunter-gather system, being a hunter (i.e. man) indicated the abilities and powers of the male relative to the gatherer (i.e. woman). This allowed for the man to be known as the significant “breadwinner” in the family, as he was able to provide meat onto the table (which was seen as being dominant).

If we travel to the early 20^th century, gender inequality continues to exist, but in a different form. The hunter-gather systems have been replaced by a household system, in which the same ideology of Conflict Theory can be applied. Women can be seen as the submissive (proletariat), while the men can be seen as the dominant (bourgeois). This is due to the static ideology that the women are dependent on men for wages (since men are the breadwinners that provide money for the women).  So, what does all this history tell us about the continuing gender discrimination in the work place (in terms of wages)? As I’ve stated before, men, who have constantly been in power in the past, are continuing to maintain the power that they had. The struggle between the men (trying to maintain power) and the women (trying to gain power) is exactly the cause of the inequality in the workplace. In terms of Conflict Theory, the man is defined as the “thesis”, while the woman is defined as the “antithesis”; the thesis and antithesis are in opposition to one another, and thus struggle pursues. But, eventually the compromise is reached between the two groups, which allows for another “thesis” and “antithesis” to appear.

Take an example to clarify this situation. Before the 1800s, women were not allowed to work for wages; women were in-home housewives that had the duty to take care of the children and prepare a meal for the man, when he came home from work. In this case, the gradual conflict between the “thesis” (working men” and the “antithesis” (housewives) lead to compromises, such as the Women Suffrage Movement that allowed the woman to finally work for her own wages (and vote) in the mid-1800s. However, now that a compromise has been found (i.e. the woman begins to work for her own wages), a new conflict appears: gender inequality in the work place. Gender inequality exists in the workplace due to the ongoing conflict between the man, who wants to express his control, and the woman, who wants to express her equality. In the 21^st century, where the women have found a compromise with the men to obtain her own wages, Conflict theory states that there is a new struggle. This struggle is the difference in wages between men and women, which eventually will also reach a compromise. Such is evident in the case where women are making 90 cent for every dollar a man makes (described in BBC news). So, of course gender inequality persist in society today (not just the workplace); Conflict Theory tells us that there is always a battle between “good-and-evil”, “men-and-women”, and that a compromise will eventually be found. But in the end, another conflict will occur.