Summarize Paul Theroux's article, "Being a Man." What are his main points? How does he support his points? Do you think he makes a strong argument?
What are your views on masculinty in America? Do you think masculinity is an oppressive force as Theroux suggests? Why or why not?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Paul Theroux's article "Being a Man" speaks about how being a man in today's society results in losing something. Men have to become these unthinking, violent things while convincing themselves that women are beneath them. He proves this by mentioning that a man cannot be seen as masculine as a writer unless he is an aggressive journalist, a rich writer, or a drunkard. He also points out that many men in sports are bad husbands or "moral degenerates". I think he makes a very strong argument, especially when using the President as an example or by speaking about his own insecurities. My personal view on masculinity in America is that instead of encouraging men to be good husbands, fathers, or sons, they encourage them to be these angry, violent, sex-fiends. Masculinity in itself is not oppressive; it's something that can be used to protect their family or to put that extra bit into their work. But in America, the definition of masculinity promotes sexual promiscuity and violence, so it is oppressive. Even though it doesn't even need to be, because being a man should be more about being a good family man and being there to support the people you love.
paul theroux's article talks about all the perceptions and expectations of a man. a man is supposed to be masculine, have interests in sports, and be aggressive. but if a man is not as interested in those activities and prefers to read or write, he is seen as a weaker being. i liked the fact that he used his own opinions about he didn't quite feel comfortable to admit the hobbies he preferred doing which would seem "unmanly" to others. in America men are still expected to cling onto their masculinity.the stereotypes of how a man should behave still seem to exist. a man is still supposed to be superior, competitive, and aggressive and anything otherwise is questioned.
Paul Theroux's article , "being a man" talks about how being a man is horrible. Becuase of the fact that he has to live up to the standards of what a man is supposed to be. he supports this by bringing up points of how men cannot do certain things because it would be considerd un-manly. an example he uses is when he wanted to be a writer but for years, he just put it to the side. Afraid that it would make him less of a man. I dont think he makes a strong argument . To me hes article its just a complaint in fancy words. i think that this has to do more with him dealing with his own feminity then society. this shows that he is insecure with himself. I think that masculinity is apart of america . like the leg or the arm of the human body , you can live without it but its nice to have around.I don't think it is an oppressive force because i think that it seperates men from female. who would want a bunch of men who act like little girls all the time ?
Paul Theroux's article is mainly about the effect that society has on a man. He views "Being a man" in America as a role that is greatly stereotyped by society. They are told or forced to be thoughtless and unresponsive to emotion among other things. He states that this behavior is learned as certain behaviors are encouraged while others are not such as hanging out with girls and being creative. He shows this by providing an example of himself between the ages of 13-16. Also, Theroux says that this sort of conditioning results in producing a vast amount of men that are the "terrorists" of society. I think that he makes a strong argument also by using himself currently as an example. He was a result of supressed creativity as being a writer was not deemed "manly" enough. He states that there are certain things that can make writing manly like journalism and how much money one makes.
I believe that masculinity is a way for men to "protect" themselves from being hurt. When one focuses their attention on competition, there is room for little else. I think masculinity is an oppressive force. It keeps men and women seperated and does not allow deep meaningful friendships to be created. It also does not allow men to express their true feelings as well as their creative sides.
Paul therouxs article was mainly against being a man. his ideas of what men are show his hatred to his own fate and sex which is a little awkward. his opinion of men was that they are inadequate and they are the destructive cause in relationships with women. they are also the ones who create violence, and he gives an example of this by asking a rhetorical question "have you ever seen an athlete act like a gentleman" this is the first part of the article where he describes men. but he uses this as an excuse to allow him to hate his own sex. and defend his livelihood as a writer. he claims all the best male authors had alot manly characters which defended themselves for being a male writer. he says he has no manly character traits to defend his position, he rather knock the gender role of men. his argument is strong how male authors show manly characters but he only named 5 authors which isnt enough to prove his theory. i dont think he even has to defend himself. he should make his money however he wants and who cares if america thinks its a feminist job. i dont think masculinity is as strong as he suggest these days. i think the gender roles of the sexes are compromising with each other allowing traits to be absorb by the opposite sex. america is always profiling people by their gender race religion... which i think is going overbaord.
What Paul Theroux is trying to say in his article "Being a Man" is that a man has to act a certain way in order to call himself a man. He says that a man has to be masculine, like sports, be violent, not to think or be emotional, etc. He tells us about how he hates being a man and if he ever wanted to do something as to read a book or to write that he would be consider not a man. What he saying is true and he does make strong points but to me, i like being a guy. I enjoy playing sports and not having to be so emotional like women are. I mean if a guy wants to be like paul, of course he will be considered differently but if he was a real man, he wouldn't care what other people think of him and he would do what he has to do to make himself happy.
Paul Theroux's article "Being a man" talks about how he feels about being a man. In his opinion, being a man is just a horrible thing from which you cannot get over. He Dislikes being a man. He thinks that the idea of being a man is just feeling pity for them. Men have to wear this coat which they wouldnt want to wear but are forced because of the society. In my opinion, most men in America are just too violent,and aggresive which reminds them that they are manly.
In "Being a Man", Paul Theroux basically complains about the false sense of masculinity in our society. He believes society pressures men into being stereotypical uncaring, unintelligent and violent people. He makes some broad generalizations that are not necessarily fair. He also seems to fail to consider the fact that some men just are a certain way, despite society's conditioning. I mean, it seems that the stereotype did have to come from somewhere in the first place. However, I do agree that for men who are not necessarily the typical "manly" men most people envision, there is unfair and sometimes awkward pressure from society to be a certain way. And I do believe that despite the fact that men may be a certain way in a broad perspective, society definitely amplifies and exaggerates whatever qualities there are. I know a lot of guys, some of my best friends even, who sometimes fit the stereotype he speaks about, and they are not necessarily like that naturally. I think he definitely makes some good points about this subject.
Post a Comment