Katz, "Advertising and the Construction of Violent White Masculinity"

| 5 Comments

Please post your discussion questions on Katz, "Advertising and the Construction of Violent White Masculinity" below. Use the following questions to guide your reading:

1. Katz begins his essay by pointing out the historical absence of attention to masculinity--and more specifically, class-conscious attention to masculinity--within discussions and debates surrounding gender in mass media, though recently this has begun to shift. What, according to Katz, are the consequences of this inattention? Why does he believe masculinity needs to be addressed?
2. What, in your view, are some areas in which masculinity ought to be addressed? How might this be done?
3. What does Katz understand as "hegemonic masculinity"?
4. What are some of the symbols that circulation around this concept in advertising? What are the cultural narratives in which hegemonic masculinity operates? Where do you see some of these narratives operating in your own experience with media?
5. What are some examples of images of hegemonic masculinity?
6. What do you think are the consequences of the circulation of these images?

5 Comments

Katz stresses that there truly isn't a singular form of masculinity, rather that hegemonic masculinity has been constructed partially by advertisers who utilize images of difference. I see opportunity in addressing masculinity in the arts and fashion, where images of masculinity are not inherently violent, and more accurately reflect the continuum of gender.

In reading Katz article I began to think...when we discuss women in advertising, we talk about how beautiful they are, how we look at a woman's attractiveness in advertising, in Katz's article, it discussing how men are used in advertising based on muscle tone and structure and the power and violence of their body, and thinking about how we see gym memberships always rise to work on gaining muscle and power, the question I want to ask is, is society too obsessed with our bodies? in both males and females? and if so, is it fair that our success can only be defined by our bodies now? is that a reasonable way to measure success?

Katz's article enlightened me on how much advertising and society focuses on the stereotypical traits women and men are supposed to have and to take pride in. What I want to know is how would people react to a swap in traditional gender roles? How would a feminine man or a masculine woman change the attitudes towards products or thoughts behind news stories?

On page 268, Katz states that "high-profile violent male athletes" advertising a product that is viewed as feminine makes it seem acceptable for men to use it. Would a high-profile female advertising a product that is viewed as masculine (e.g. beer) be as effective in getting more females to use it?

My question is who decides what a female is and a male is. What makes us masculine and feminine. The media definitely has a big influence in determining what should be masculine and feminine. Katz article shows a lot of examples of how a male should be by using voilence but that is not what every male figure want to be know as.

Leave a comment

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by zimme313 published on March 29, 2013 10:06 AM.

Blog Post Week 9 was the previous entry in this blog.

Blog post week 9 is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.