The themes of this article were, "The angry, aggressive, White working-class male as antiauthority rebel (21st-century version); violence as genetically programmed male behavior; the use of military and sports symbolism to enhance the masculine identification and appeal of products; the association of muscularity with ideal masculinity; and the equation of heroic masculinity with violent masculinity" (p. 352). I found each theme convincing in the depiction of modern imageries goal is to equate manliness with violence, power, and control. These encouragements and attempts of brainwashing only prolong the progress of disassociating gender in terms of capability. I think it is important to examine advertisement and the message being given via the text because it is laying the cultural foundation of the next generation.
On a side note, I found the intro to be interesting. The author discuses the racial representation in the media. Richard Dyer argues, "White power secures its dominance by seeming not to be anything in particular; "whiteness" is constructed as the norm against which non-dominant groups are defined as "other" (p. 350).
Has the ideology behind the images of masculinity changed over time? In what ways? And if so, how can we begin to change the association of violence with masculinity into a human characteristic and less gender associated (or racially associated)?