Complete the online workshop "P". Follow all the directions and bring the approved paper to turn in on Thu Feb 9
USE APA FORMAT
See Link
HERE
Monday, January 30, 2012
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Working Definition of Masculinity and Gender
From the WHO Report, "Engaging men and boys in changing gender-based inequity in health," 2007
Box 1: Working definitions of gender, masculinity and patriarchy
Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, expectations and definitions a given society considers appropriate for men and women. Sex
refers to the biological and physiological characteristics that define men (and boys) and women (and girls). Male gender norms are the
social expectations and roles assigned to men and boys in relation to or in contrast to women and girls. These include ideas that men
should take risks, endure pain, be tough or stoic or should have multiple sexual partners to prove that they are “real men”. Masculinity
refers to the multiple ways that manhood is socially defined across the historical and cultural context and to the power differences between
specific versions of manhood (Connell, 1994). For example, a version of manhood associated with the dominant social class or ethnic
group in a given setting may have greater power and salience, just as heterosexual masculinity often holds more power than homosexual
or bisexual masculinity. Patriarchy refers to historical power imbalances and cultural practices and systems that accord men on aggregate
more power in society and offer men material benefits, such as higher incomes and informal benefits, including care and domestic service
from women and girls in the family (United Nations Division for the Advancement of Women, 2003).
A social constructionist perspective has guided many interventions with men and boys from a gender perspective (Connell, 1987, 1994;
Kimmel, 2000). This approach suggests that masculinity and gender norms are socially constructed (rather than being biologically
driven), vary across historical and local context and interact with other factors such as poverty and globalization. In a social constructionist
perspective, the prevailing patterns of hegemony and patriarchy create gender norms that families, communities and social institutions
reinforce and reconstruct. Individual boys and men learn and internalize norms about what it means to be men but can also react to
these norms and can and do question them. Boys learn what manhood means by observing their families, where many see women and
girls providing caregiving for children while men are often outside the family setting working. They observe and internalize broader social
norms, including messages from television, mass media and from which toys or games are considered appropriate for boys or girls. They
also learn such norms in schools and other social institutions and from their peer groups, which may encourage risk-taking behaviour,
competition and violence and may ridicule boys who do not meet these social expectations. These social meanings of manhood are largely
constructed in relation to prevailing social norms about what it means to be a woman or girl.
At the same time, norms about manhood are constructed against the backdrop of other power hierarchies and differences in income that
give greater power to some men (such as middle class, professional men from certain ethnic groups or older men) and exclude or dominate
others (such as younger boys, men from minority or disempowered ethnic groups and men with lower income). Thus, a social constructionist
perspective focuses attention to the variation in men and boys – their multiple realities and individual differences – and places gender
norms or social definitions of manhood within other power dimensions and social realities, including social class differences.
Several key United Nations events and documents have implicitly or explicitly supported a social constructionist perspective, including
the Expert Group Meeting on the Role of Men and Boys in Achieving Gender Equality (United Nations Division on the Advancement
of Women, 2003), the Plan of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development in 1994 and the Platform for
Action of the Fourth World Conference on Women in 1995. Participants at these meetings affirmed the need to engage men and boys in
questioning prevailing inequitable gender norms and have documented a growing number of programme efforts that are doing so.
Most of the 58 studies included in this review either explicitly or implicitly apply a social constructionist approach and many critically
discuss or question traditional, inequitable attitudes about gender and masculinity in the intervention. They also generally take into account
the other power dimensions and social realities facing the men and boys who participate. This does not imply that there is unanimity
on the conceptual frameworks for interventions from a gender perspective with men and boys. Among researchers and programme staff,
there is debate about the definitions of gender norms, gender roles, gender socialization, gender relations, social constructionist theories
and masculinity. Although this publication does not ignore the existence of these debates, it focuses on whether the evaluated programmes
have taken a gender perspective into account in their work with men and boys and how and whether these programmes have been able to
measure changes in the attitudes and behaviour of men and boys as a result of the intervention.
Box 1: Working definitions of gender, masculinity and patriarchy
Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, expectations and definitions a given society considers appropriate for men and women. Sex
refers to the biological and physiological characteristics that define men (and boys) and women (and girls). Male gender norms are the
social expectations and roles assigned to men and boys in relation to or in contrast to women and girls. These include ideas that men
should take risks, endure pain, be tough or stoic or should have multiple sexual partners to prove that they are “real men”. Masculinity
refers to the multiple ways that manhood is socially defined across the historical and cultural context and to the power differences between
specific versions of manhood (Connell, 1994). For example, a version of manhood associated with the dominant social class or ethnic
group in a given setting may have greater power and salience, just as heterosexual masculinity often holds more power than homosexual
or bisexual masculinity. Patriarchy refers to historical power imbalances and cultural practices and systems that accord men on aggregate
more power in society and offer men material benefits, such as higher incomes and informal benefits, including care and domestic service
from women and girls in the family (United Nations Division for the Advancement of Women, 2003).
A social constructionist perspective has guided many interventions with men and boys from a gender perspective (Connell, 1987, 1994;
Kimmel, 2000). This approach suggests that masculinity and gender norms are socially constructed (rather than being biologically
driven), vary across historical and local context and interact with other factors such as poverty and globalization. In a social constructionist
perspective, the prevailing patterns of hegemony and patriarchy create gender norms that families, communities and social institutions
reinforce and reconstruct. Individual boys and men learn and internalize norms about what it means to be men but can also react to
these norms and can and do question them. Boys learn what manhood means by observing their families, where many see women and
girls providing caregiving for children while men are often outside the family setting working. They observe and internalize broader social
norms, including messages from television, mass media and from which toys or games are considered appropriate for boys or girls. They
also learn such norms in schools and other social institutions and from their peer groups, which may encourage risk-taking behaviour,
competition and violence and may ridicule boys who do not meet these social expectations. These social meanings of manhood are largely
constructed in relation to prevailing social norms about what it means to be a woman or girl.
At the same time, norms about manhood are constructed against the backdrop of other power hierarchies and differences in income that
give greater power to some men (such as middle class, professional men from certain ethnic groups or older men) and exclude or dominate
others (such as younger boys, men from minority or disempowered ethnic groups and men with lower income). Thus, a social constructionist
perspective focuses attention to the variation in men and boys – their multiple realities and individual differences – and places gender
norms or social definitions of manhood within other power dimensions and social realities, including social class differences.
Several key United Nations events and documents have implicitly or explicitly supported a social constructionist perspective, including
the Expert Group Meeting on the Role of Men and Boys in Achieving Gender Equality (United Nations Division on the Advancement
of Women, 2003), the Plan of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development in 1994 and the Platform for
Action of the Fourth World Conference on Women in 1995. Participants at these meetings affirmed the need to engage men and boys in
questioning prevailing inequitable gender norms and have documented a growing number of programme efforts that are doing so.
Most of the 58 studies included in this review either explicitly or implicitly apply a social constructionist approach and many critically
discuss or question traditional, inequitable attitudes about gender and masculinity in the intervention. They also generally take into account
the other power dimensions and social realities facing the men and boys who participate. This does not imply that there is unanimity
on the conceptual frameworks for interventions from a gender perspective with men and boys. Among researchers and programme staff,
there is debate about the definitions of gender norms, gender roles, gender socialization, gender relations, social constructionist theories
and masculinity. Although this publication does not ignore the existence of these debates, it focuses on whether the evaluated programmes
have taken a gender perspective into account in their work with men and boys and how and whether these programmes have been able to
measure changes in the attitudes and behaviour of men and boys as a result of the intervention.
Out of Touch: American Men and the Healthcare System
Commonwealth Fund Study Report
Women and the Affordability Gap
This link covers a Commonwealth Fund Study that showed disparities in affordability and access for women to health care. Important to factor in when discussing the other report, cited above.
Affordability Gap for Women CLICK HERE
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Monday, January 23, 2012
Longevity Gap: Harvard Medical School Update
Here's an update to Dr. Simon's 2003 published comments on the Longevity Gap. CLICK HERE
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)