Acts of anger and violence are hard to miss in United States history. As it appears in American culture, through our entertainment and through our core values, is only enabled to be problematic via the environments it is cultivated in. It is often questioned whether this violence is by nature or nurture. However, because environments which systematically encourage it are entirely responsible, this answer will not have an impact. Looking at the human mind will be rendered insignificant if we fail to pick apart the systems that mind is processed through.

At an initial glance of the many scenarios in which violence occurs, it might be difficult to find a unifying factor between all of the variables at play. One article from Scientific American entitled Understanding Violence goes over some of the reasons violence plays a role in the human experience. Findings from research on our counterparts, monkeys, has explained how other species use violence more practically. “They do not start a fight to alienate themselves from another individual, but rather to renegotiate the terms of an ongoing relationship,” and goes on to say that “peacemaking, an important part of this negotiation, appears to be in part a learned skill.” Looking at how these observations relate to the way monkeys work, it is clear that the learned skill here is not the violence, but what it is used for. Regardless of how their brains impact their actions, the bulk of their decision making comes from their learned routines. Had they grown up around an environment in which violence was used for another purpose, that is the purpose they would use it for as well. In this instance, the violence utilised by individual monkeys is influenced by the culture cultivated by the group, and considering their relation to the human race, it can be inferred that a similar phenomenon might be at play in people.

Observing how monkeys express and deal with issues using violence is not the only way to understand how it relates to the human experience. Philip Zimbardo, an American Psychologist known for his work on the Stanford Prison experiment, often discusses the complexities of violence in the human mind. In a Ted Talk on this subject, he asks the question, “where do people go wrong?” heavily exploring the lines between learned violence and people that are, hypothetically, intrinsically violent. In his conversations regarding violence, Zimbardo outlines some reasons for the violence that comes out in people. More heavily, he blames “blind obedience to authority,” and “conformity to group norms.” Most notably, it is important to point out that this would obviously have an effect on people when their environmental context is that of violence, anger, etc. In his work, Zimbardo discusses the events at Abu Ghraib, in which American soldiers not only torture their prisoners, but documented their horrific endeavours, posing with a smile and thumbs up. These American soldiers were dropped into a world in which violence against the other was acceptable, and so that is the path they took. Along with the fact that these people had previously been functioning, normal members of society, this shows that their behavior was heavily influenced by the environment they were in, both in their peaceful and violence environments.

In 1968, third grade teacher Jane Elliot designed a social experiment to conduct on her students. She wanted to test how the students would react to dividing them up and assigning stereotypes to separate groups. After seperating the class into blue eyed and brown eyed students, she told the students with blue eyes of their intelligence, and brown eyed students that they had inferior traits. Within the day, she noticed brown eyed students becoming more anxious and less confident, in addition to their grades and comprehension dropping. Additionally, the blue eyed students would begin to bully the brown eyed students for their differences, and take advantage of the privileges they were given because of their blue eyes. The next week, the students were informed that they had been misinformed; those with brown eyes were in fact superior. Almost immediately the roles were reversed. This shows, that regardless of their actual intelligence, students based their actions and beliefs on that of the group; when students felt superior, they bullied those in the other group. This shows that the environment set out for a group of people, either by an authority or higher system, is entirely responsible for the way that they take out anger and violence on those around them.

Knowing the impacts of the environments people are placed in, not only in their development but throughout their life, is significant because it can help us to create a more peaceful environment, confident that it will create a peaceful outcome. Regardless of a person’s baseline mental state, they will end up going with the grain. In the end, realizing the impact of systems and environments as influences will help us shift the responsibility on the bigger picture, and come up with larger scale solutions to problems of violence in the world. This is important because it shows that the changes we make in the world should not be with the soldiers or the students, but in the government systems and in the schools.

Bibliography:

1. https://www.ted.com/talks/philip_zimbardo_on_the_psychology_of_evil?language=en

2. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/understanding-violence/

3. https://www.pbs.org/video/frontline-class-divided/

In this essay I explore the confines of toxic masculinity and propose it is something that can affect anyone. If I were to write it again, I would like to spend more time on analysis to better support my thesis. I would also have liked to create a better flow, because I feel the essay can be choppy at times. However, I was ultimately proud of the format of my essay, because I tried something new in terms of the format, and how I introduced the topic. In the future I would like to further explore the ways in which I could rearrange my writing.

  -------------------------------

I could not have been further from familiarity buried deep in the Yosemite National Park, but I felt right at home, hard to find in the forest. A soft chill fell over the evening air. The smell of smoked wood served as a distraction so the sun could sneak away discreetly.

I did not know everyone there, and the new-faced adults were intimidating. All I knew was that I was older than the other kids, and consequently more level-headed. Jeromy, a family friend, was quickly conjuring up flames to cook a campfire meal on, but the guests were getting hungrier than the fire.

“Hey, does anyone want to help me out choppin’ logs?” Jeromy spoke cheerfully. His smiley tone indicated he was addressing the kids table. He was offering the handle of a small axe to any willing to accept his challenge.

Being the boisterous leader of the younger ones, I stepped up to the plate. With my fabricated confidence, noodle arms and all, I undeniably announced myself as a viable candidate. But my self-assured stance soaked in anticipation would not even savor the satisfaction of acknowledgement. My efforts went largely unnoticed, and Jeromy’s eyes cut through me like a knife through sad butter and landed instead, on some other, younger boy slumped absentmindedly behind me on a log. This little boy got to chop the logs.

So as I watched him barely heave the hatchet over his head, I was counting the ways in which I could have done a better job. I critiqued his form spitefully, but my mind was more heavily milling over my flaws. What was it that took my offer out of the running? Was I too small? Was I too stupid? Not trustworthy with an axe? How could I possibly prove myself capable of cutting wood? I was angry that something about my superb stature squashed my chances of wood chopping. In that moment, and in many to come, I compared my own strength to those who stole my missed opportunities. Over time, I picked up the pattern that my femininity was racing ahead of me and kicking opportunities out of the way like unlucky pebbles.

There are a million things I could have done once I discovered my femininity. I could have embraced it with its bright colors and pretty pieces, and used it to propel me towards opportunities. I could have hidden it; I could have accepted it. I chose to crumple it up small and swallow it whole. In order to finally have hatchets handed to me, I needed all the muscle mass I could get.

But why did I choose to suppress it? How is it possible that, in that moment, the system imprinted on me, a girl, that the right thing to do was rid myself of femininity?

The concept of toxic masculinity being something capable of affecting people other than men is explored in the Telegraph’s article Violence Does Not Come Naturally to Men and Boys: “Contrary to what Fox News and faulty science would say, it takes a huge effort to turn boys and men into killers. From primatologists to evolutionary anthropologists, we know that neither women nor men are killers by nature” (June 2015). We live in a society which heavily promotes organizations like the NFL, or encourages men to follow careers in the military or in construction. These are all jobs which require their participants to, more times than not, put on a brave face, and fight through physical and emotional afflictions. More importantly, some of these organizations do not even allow women to participate. Our society is riddled with systems which impose toxic masculinity onto men, and evidently these philosophies do not come naturally to them. The article continues, “Extreme trauma, humiliation, shaming, social isolation and intense indoctrination are nearly always part of the making of men who kill.” There are intense and rigorous factors at play which aim to make men this way, and if these ideas were imposed on women, they would be changed just the same. Jared L. Skillings, Phd, emphasizes this point in CNBC’s article Gillette's toxic masculinity ad earned a mixed response—but research supports the message. “There are also ways in which men can be unhealthy — just like women. And so it's important for us to try to highlight and accentuate the areas that are positive and try to identify and fix the ones that are not” (January 16, 2019). In this severely indoctrinating system, it is perfectly possible for women to inherit the same ideas. They can be unhealthy in the same ways as men. In many cases, their environment makes that possibility a reality.

My example of chopping firewood is not an isolated incident. For years to come, I spent hours of my time working tirelessly to look and feel more masculine. Habits of self hatred and an incessant need to feel tougher were probably picked up from the boys with whom I spent a lot of time. Although I will never really go through it, I know how much energy it takes out of a person to truly embody masculinity. I am well aware of fearing femininity being a full time job. In middle school, I even spent a few years forcing myself to be a tenor in a capella because I feared those around me associated lower octaves with a higher IQ. I wore big, baggy t-shirts because I believed that being small would hold me back, and I wore a thick skin and an angry face because I thought if I was too nice I was too weak. I associated coldness with coolness, bigger muscles with a bigger brain, and femininity with negativity. Ask me anytime and I will gladly tell you the story of a parasite called toxic masculinity using a woman as a host.

Works Cited:

1. Barker, Gary. "Violence Does Not Come Naturally to Men and Boys." The Telegraph. June 05, 2015. Accessed January 18, 2019. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11652352/Violence-does-not-come-naturally-to-men-and-boys.html.

2. Hess, Abigail. "Gillette's Toxic Masculinity Ad Earned a Mixed Response-but Research Supports the Message." CNBC. January 16, 2019. Accessed January 18, 2019. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/16/scientists-agree-with-the-message-of-gillettes-toxic-masculinity-ad-.html.

My original slide is slightly different in the design, but very different in its meaning. When editing the slide, I changed a few of the words, because after further thought I realized that not all of them felt like they described me. Eccentric, for example, didn’t quite fit how I wanted to describe myself, so I replaced it with caring. As for the other words, I am very passionate about debate, voicing my opinions and activism. Additionally, basketball and videogames are two big hobbies of mine.

For my image, I originally decided to use a guitar, but I changed it because it didn’t feel very personal. Instead I replaced it with one of my sixth grade projects. This project was a part of our journey in self discovery; to create a mask we thought represented ourselves. This mask is created around my identity at the time, and still holds a lot of truth in my identity today.

Many aspects of the mask are very symbolic, which I think is similar to identity in itself. You won’t be able to discover everything about me just by looking at me once. First, the forest at the chin represents my adventurous side, the river represents my creativity, and the rocks around the nose represent more jagged sides of my personality. I’m often stubborn, and easily upset. Finally, the spaces where the rest of the mask should be represent the parts of my personality I haven’t found yet. There are still holes in my mask, and parts of myself that I need to discover.

I made sure the color of the flag on the far right contrasted the background color of the words in intensity, but that they still went well together. I also tried to keep it minimalist but break up the space with the variation in value at the same time. I also contrasted the size of the text to add a bit of variation. The mask, in addition to being a part of the meaning of the slide, also adds some shape and form to the slide. Finally, I made sure to space out the word section and the mask section to follow the rule of thirds.