Opinion

Put toxic masculinity to rest

Graphic by Hemen Mesfin

We need to start having more conversations on toxic masculinity because it’s long overdue.

by Lindsey Anderson

CONTRIBUTOR

The term “toxic masculinity” has been reintroduced to society within the past couple of years amidst growing social movements. This term refers to the cultural norms that create pressures for men to behave in a certain way and leads to a highly narrow definition of “manliness.”

If we look at toxic masculinity as having stemmed from unattainable expectations set for men by society, then we can see the problem is not in the idea of masculinity itself but in what defines it.

The first part of this definition involves knowledge. Men are expected to know just about everything from fixing cars to refinancing homes — an expectation that has detrimental impacts on men’s learning and growth.

A 2015 study found when men ask for help, they are viewed as less competent and capable, as opposed to women who are viewed as inquisitive and promising.

And this happens all the time.

Recently, a male friend of mine came forward with his own experience with toxic masculinity. He shared that when he asked for guidance on how he should pursue sawing down a large pine tree due to his lack of experience using a large chain saw, he was met with hostility, aggression and disbelief by his fellow male coworkers. This is where toxic masculinity comes into play: men are viewed by others, including each other, as less manly and less qualified when they ask for assistance on such things.

The worst part is many of these toxic masculine norms are taught to boys at the earliest stage of development and become further ingrained as they grow older.

In order to illustrate this point, let me introduce you to the three most common phrases told to boys and young men: 1) “Don’t be gay;” 2) “You fight like a girl;” and 3) “Man up!”

The phrase “don’t be gay” creates fear amongst young boys toward showing emotion of any kind. Men are expected to be these stoic, emotionless beings that are deeply affected by nothing, creating a huge divide between “manliness” and vulnerability in showing one’s emotion or sharing one’s mind.

Both phrases “you fight like a girl” and “man up” illustrate the male expectation of toughness. Along with being knowledgeable and stoic, men are expected to be strong warriors. When they show any sign of physical weakness, men are likened to a woman; and when they express any form of emotion, fear or mental-physical struggle, they are told to be more of a man.

The biggest issue here is that we are the ones teaching these manliness constructs to our children and in doing so, are creating this unattainable expectation of what a “true man” should be.

When one searches for the definition of “manly” or “masculine” on Google, a list of synonyms comes up. A few of those listed are “well-built,” “fearless,” “knowledgeable” and “handy.” If you look a little closer on the list, you’ll find the antonyms — “effeminate” and “weak.” If you go one step further and look up the definition of “handy,” you’ll find it to be “skillful.” The antonym? “Inept.”

Think about that.

A man who may not be the perfect representation of manly is weak. He is feminine. A man who may not be able to fix a leaky faucet or repair an old car is suddenly inept. He is incompetent, unskilled and inferior because he does not fit the definition of being “manly.”

At the end of the day, it all comes down to the meanings we assign to the biological human body. In doing so, we dictate the ways one should and should not be, defying nature and assigning our opinions to the ways in which people choose to fulfill their lives.

It is time that we rewrite this definition to encompass all men — those who fit the manly norm and those who don’t.

Because men who choose to write poetry, ask questions and display kindness deserve to be just as righteous as Mr. Tough Guy in his big pick-up truck.

Lindsey Anderson is a senior studying rhetoric and writing. Current grading system is inequitable

EDITOR IN CHIEF Catlan Nguyen

MANAGING EDITOR Trinity Bland

NEWS EDITOR Katelynn Robinson

OPINION EDITOR Aaliyah Alexander

MUNDO AZTECA EDITOR Noe Sandoval

ASST. MUNDO AZTECA EDITOR Karina Bazarte

ARTS & CULTURE EDITOR Ryan Hardison

ASST. ARTS & CULTURE EDITOR Cristina Lombardo

SPORTS EDITOR Jason Freund

ASST. SPORTS EDITOR Andrew Finley

ENGAGEMENT EDITOR Amanda Orozco

PHOTO EDITOR Noelani Sapla

MULTIMEDIA EDITOR Mackenzie Stafford

ASST. MULTIMEDIA EDITOR Jayne Yutig

GRAPHIC DESIGNER Hemen Mesfin

STAFF WRITERS Xiomara Villarreal-Gerardo Daniela Ramirez Lucelis Martinez Brenna Martinez Adam Correa

SENIOR STAFF WRITERS Juan Daniel Avila

CONTRIBUTORS Eugénie Budnik Brittany Cruz-Fejeran Cheryl Akpenyi Davis Ramage Isabella Smith Alyssa Phillips Taylor Harris

by ALyssA PhiLLiPs

CONTRIBUTOR

Traditional grading is inequitable, proven by any amount of scrutiny.

It’s based on colonialism, a construct that inherently privileges white students over students of color simply because whiteness is the standard by which we grade and are graded — a fact that is both historically true and one we should work hard to rectify.

While it may seem impossible, the solution to systemic inequity within higher education is to dismantle the practice of traditional grading and replace it with more equitable systems that focus on learning instead of grading.

Whenever the word “dismantle” enters the conversation, people get defensive and argue students need to be prepared for inequities they will face in the “real” world — one that will treat them differently based on how well they have mastered Standard Written English.

In other words, some people believe we should continue to use an inequitable system because that’s the way it’s always been and we don’t want to change that until someone else does.

This logic has clearly proven false when confronting historical inequities.

We can’t wait for change to happen especially when systems like this benefit the people in power. As long as those with institutional power remain untouched by an unjust grading system, we won’t see change initiated.

Change has to start within the classroom for it to truly be equitable.

Traditional grading reinforces learning based on passing the next test or cramming for a final rather than focusing on learning as the goal.

By assigning a letter to everything a student produces, students begin to work only for the letter grade and not for the self-awareness, learning and personal growth that should accompany academic growth.

While inequity should be reason enough to change the way we grade and are graded, we also need to re-center learning in the classroom because learning is the goal and our current system of grading does not suggest that. Instructors need to provide students with the opportunity to learn without getting penalized for failing in the process. Refocusing on equity in the classroom is how we accomplish that.

Understandably, abandoning traditional grading can feel both overwhelming and impossible to accomplish. However, refocusing equity doesn’t have to mean traditional grading is no longer a viable option and, thus, defunct.

While we do have to acknowledge the systems of inequality traditional grading promotes through inequitable standards, what matters is that people do the work.

Traditional grading will not disappear overnight (even though it should), but we can avert our attention to the students who are in classrooms disadvantaged by design rather than just fantasizing about a future without traditional grading and discussing concepts with no real application.

We need to make changes to our classrooms now — whether they’re small steps such as discussing inequity in the classroom or major steps such as implementing labor-based grading.

Centering equity also means centering students and becoming uncomfortable with the unknown and the experimental because students deserve a system in which they can learn and succeed without having to adhere to standards designed to exclude them.

Alyssa Phillips is a second year graduate student studying creative writing. Follow her on Twitter @alyjoye.

ADVERTISING DIRECTOR Brian Arnold

GRAPHIC DESIGN SPECIALIST Luis Valenzuela

EDITORIAL 619.594.4190 editor@thedailyaztec.com

ADVERTISING 619.594.6977 advertising@thedailyaztec.com

PRINT The Daily Aztec publishes 5,000 copies of its weekly print edition every Wednesday throughout the semester

WEB Daily content is available at www.thedailyaztec.com

QUESTIONS/COMMENTS letters@thedailyaztec.com

The views and opinions expressed in this issue do not necessarily reflect those of The Daily Aztec.

FOLLOW US

/dailyaztec

@TheDailyAztec

@thedailyaztec