Ay, Brah.

The image of women in the media has been prominent in controversial discussion and social conflict theories for decades. While a worthy issue to speculate, we've been distracted from analyzing the male image. Has anyone ever stopped to think, how did men get to where we are now?

The virtues that [straight] men admire in other men have become qualities that confound most common sense. Alpha men today aren’t like they used to be. Iconic male figures in history like James Dean or John Wayne were celebrated for their charisma, confidence and chivalry. Their presence in society wasn’t because of their physical size, misogyny, or aggression, as we see today. Through the years, we can see a visible difference from the men we used to respect to the men held revered today. You can expect the "bro-tastic" "alpha male" of today to be cocky, arrogant, presumptuous, intolerant, and unbelievably muscular. Other than exasperation, this might be posing a real problem. Afterall, men commit 90% of violence and research shows we’re getting more violent. Even CNN chimed in saying the concept of a "quality man" is obsolete.

Men have undergone shocking reformation in the media through the years. Today, masculinity is associated with how much alcohol you can endure without vomiting, how freakishly huge their biceps are, or the turnover rate in their bedroom. He's expected to know flippant details over a few domestic beers, which he will always drink with his "bros." Men today love their bros, and religiously oblige to the latest puzzling concept of "bro-code." Ugh, barf. Also, the physique of admired men apparently caught elephantitis and has swollen to masses beyond pleasing. Notice the changing bodies from Marlon Brando, John Wayne, James Dean, to Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sylvester Stallone, Jean-Claude Van Damme in the 80s and 90s.

In the video “Tough Guise,” Jackson Katz explores the impact that overly-masculinized images have on society and culture. His insight is directly related to the cultivation theory, that suggests mass-produced images and messages are responsible for shaping the perception of our reality, ultimately “cultivating” our culture as a whole from media. Boys will turn out like the men they watch in movies, and those that don’t can expect backbreaking harassment and vicious words like bitch, fag, pussy. We are immersed with this ideal through media. It’s not just in a few places like video games and movies, but it’s literally what passes as a social norm. Katz also drew interesting connections between the construction of hyper-masculinity and politics, sports, consumerism and the marginalization of women.

This image of the alpha male is not an accident. It’s sourced and controlled by white, heterosexual males that do control this message and can leverage it to their benefit. Theoretically, one could postulate how these images encourage military advocacy. One could argue that men conditioned to think brute violence is the route to respect would find more hope in the military. Either way, with media reinforcing apathetic, mindless, aggressive behavior is implementing an ideal that isn’t realistic, and conjointly putting restrictions on an individual’s growth, behavior and attitude.

Sports: Mind-Controlling Propaganda

Considering sports as an “important” part of American culture is the understatement of the year. Sports are a central part of people’s lives and they certainly influence culture. Athleticism, teamwork, competition, hard work and so on are staples of American ideals because of sports. We witness the crowds of everyday people losing their minds, temper and money as though it’s completely normal behavior. Allegiance to a sports team is basically the same as fidelity to your spouse. People get tattoos of their sports team, spend outrageous money to see them perform, paint themselves and riot all for the sake of their team. How has sports become such a monster capable of such mania?

The sociology of professional sports strikes an uncanny resemblance to American sociology in general. To understand a society, one must understand political economy- how money and power are intertwined and what their intentions are with such power. Conflict theory of sociology says that social order results from the rich and powerful using their privilege to maintain their advantage – sometimes by force but more often by control of the media, symbols, schools, and other institutions. American sports are undoubtedly dictated and shaped by the structure of the economy. Furthermore, sports are also socially constructed, but constructed by the powerful moneymakers. Dimensions to question: How athletes become alienated from their own bodies, sports and commercialism, sports as patriotic/nationalistic propaganda.

Sports are a business, an extremely profitable business. Millions and millions are spent publicizing sports and millions of dollars have also been spent watching them. American sports teams are designed to make rewards (usually monetary) for their business owners, and those affiliated become conditioned to only want money, power and prestige. The deviance in sports conduct emphasizes this- increased use of violence, breaking rules like holding and pushing, and the use of steroids as a performance enhancer. Athletes are doing this for the symbiotic relationship, not for individual betterment. In fact, when an individual becomes an athlete, they lose their identity and become a spokesperson for their economic suppliers, or sponsors. Personal beliefs, ethics and positions are replaced with those of the sponsor. Michael Jordan is a perfect example of an athlete exploiting himself to the desires of his many sponsors. On the other hand, Tommie Smith and John Carlos show what happens when you utilize fame to voice personal beliefs. The two athletes were condemned for demonstrating against the inequality in America after they won the gold and bronze medal, respectively.

The NFL also regularly acts as propaganda for the military. Militant advocacy is ubiquitous during games- frequent advertisements for US military, appearances of troops at games, segments of troops overseas during holiday games. The Super Bowl begins with the national anthem and then encouraging words from the president, followed by fighter jets flying above. Furthermore, the parallels between the two are unmistakable. Athletes, like soldiers, become numbered gladiators that sacrifice their health and identity to follow orders from a commander. They are submitted to a caste system; and exploited to never see the kind of money they’re actually generating. Their bodies become conditioned for violence to gain territory on the opposition. Even terms used in football come directly from military use: Blitz, line to gain, bomb, trench, and encroachment.

As a non-sports fan, I’ve always found the reaction from fans intriguing, or mind-boggling. It’s interesting that seemingly sound-minded people can fall in love with athletes from across America that play for the team they live in, while developing this irrational hatred for similar men that play for opposing teams. Reminiscent of flag-waving war supporters without a clue what we’re fighting for, much?

The sociology of sports reflects everything that is wrong with America. Sports naturalize extreme violence for the sake of winning, is run by commercialism, uses the subservience of athletes to back corporate wishes, and strips the individual of their voice to stay popular with the keepers of normality. Corporations use their power to hide this fascist agenda and mislead fans into believing there’s no political notion in sports. We have been manipulated into accepting irrational behavior, finding ourselves act the same as those who are heavily biased in politics or blind nationalism. Sports have become a diversion to the issues that matter, a distraction that pits our own human nature against ourselves.

Yay For Gay

What do you get when you have two working people bringing home a salary with no child to spend it on? A marketer’s wet dream. According to San Francisco research, 76% of the gay and lesbian community earns more than the national average of $40,000 a year. This is largely because there is no child in the picture so both parties can afford to work. Marketer’s refer to it as DINK (dual income no kids) and are tickled to death by this jackpot. But what do you do when you have a mass of money to appeal to and the rest of your market is still up their bigoted ass? Use innuendo like your life depended on it.

For some reason, advertising to gays has this stigma that misled people to believing it must be sleazy or overly sexual to be effective. As though the only way to get homosexual attention is through sex. But isn’t that already a maxim for advertising in general anyway? Sex sells…to everyone. For decades the sexy attempts to sell to straight men has produced sweeping outrage from women for the shocking indecency and deprecation. When advertisers find themselves in this new light of moral awareness, they use a tactic like product placement. Homo-placement discreetly places symbols or other gay suggestions in the ad that blow over most hetero-heads. However, these ads that target gays don’t frequent your average CNN or ABC. They implement the classic American device known as “separate but equal.” Advertisers will run one gay commercial on Logo or Bravo and another, basically identical without homosexual implications, to the rest of America.

I’m not totally certain how I feel about these strategies to incorporate gay characters in mainstream commercials. On one hand, the fact these companies are using utmost discretion sends a message that being gay is something to hide. However, subtle placement could also be seen as attempts to normalize the homosexual community to the rest of society. While there’s always room for scrutiny, these ads could be baby steps toward tolerance (the non-offensive ads, anyway), a way to include homosexuals in ads without alienating them. Perhaps eventually pave the way to overall social equality. After all, there’s no better way to reach the top than through capitalism!

While it’s true that marginalized groups in history have acquired power through economic resources, it’s always been through producing or controlling money. However, gays and lesbians are breaching equality in the economic realm as the role of the consumer. It is because they’re so attractive to advertisers that they are offered the some kind of route to equality. Unfortunately, this commodization of homosexuality resulted in ads that hide gay culture with innuendos behind a straight appearance. Misrepresentation like this is ignoring millions of homosexuals who don’t experience reality like this, thus rendering their lives invisible once again.