In Bederman's article, "Remaking Manhood," Bederman discusses the process of describing manhood. "To define manhood as an ideological process is not to say that it deals only with intellectuals or ideas. It is, rather, to say that manhood or masculinity is the cultural process whereby concrete individuals are constituted as members of a preexisting social category--men" (p.7). With Enstad's article, it was all about femininity and ladyhood, discussing the cultural, historical and political facets of fashion and consumers in the fashion industry. She discusses the process of making 'fine clothes' and where these women wear their fine clothes, and how they felt about.
What remains interesting to me is an excerpt from the first article: "[W]ith that positioning as "man" or "woman" inevitably comes a host of other social meanings, expectations, and identities. Individuals have no choice but to act upon these meanings- the accept or reject them, adopt or adapt them--in order to be able to live their lives in human society" (p.7). She also goes on to say that "Who an individual is and what he or she can do...is based upon his or her body."
Why aren't people allowed a choice? Both these articles are strongly focused around the image of the body. In the first article, it is all about men and boxing; maybe one of the most "manly" sports because it sets the sheer power of men against one another. In the second one, it's about women only in regards to fashion-- how they make it and how they wear it on their bodies. My question is, what about everything else? Where to people like cross-dressers, transvestites, or gender reassignment candidates come into all this? It can be more about the body. The body doesn't warrant what someone can or cannot do, it's about how the body and mind work together. It's interesting that both articles are written by women. Both are extremely stereotypical of "men" and "women" roles merely based on their titles alone. When will we stop being able to define people solely on aspects of their body?