Week 3 Forum Meets Course Objectives

The Week 3 Forum Meets The Following Course Objectives

The Week 3 Forum meets the following course objectives: Understand the feminist perspective, masculinities, and contributions to social research. In this discussion forum, students are required to provide a response to one of the following questions. Remember to include two references to the readings and to respond to two other posts. 1. What is the double standard discussed in Andersen (Chapter 4)? How has the double standard changed over time? Reference the readings and respond to two other posts. Or 2. Compare and contrast the stories in Connell about Adam Singer and Tip Southern (Chapter 6). What do these stories tell us about masculinities in the U.S.? Instructions: Sociology lives when we engage it – we read about it, we discuss it, we debate it, we frame our research questions with it, we put it to the test of empiricism, and every once in a while we build it ourselves. Therefore, the success of this course depends on all of us thoroughly engaging it. One of the most important parts of the course will be the discussions and debates we participate in, in our Forum. These discussions need to be informed by thorough reading of the assigned texts. Each week, learners will post one initial post per week. This post must demonstrate comprehension of the course materials, the ability to apply that knowledge in the real world, active presence. Learners will engage with the instructor and peers through rich responses to their posts. To motivate engaged discussion, posts are expected to be on time with regular interaction throughout the week. All posts should demonstrate college level writing skills. To promote vibrant discussion as we would in a face to face classroom, formatted citations and references are not required. Quotes should not be used at all, or used sparingly. If you quote a source quotation marks should be used and an APA formatted citation and reference provided. Points Ex e m p l a r y (100%) Acc o m p lished (85%) Developing (75%) Beginning (65%) Not Participating (0%) Comprehension of course materials 4 Initial post demonstrates rich comprehension of course materials. Detailed use of terminology or examples learned in class. If post includes opinion, it is supported with evaluated evidence. Initial post demonstrates clear comprehension of course materials. Use of terminology or examples learned in class. If post includes opinion, it is supported with evaluated evidence. Initial post does not clearly demonstrate comprehension of course materials. Specific terminology or examples learned in class may be incorrect or incomplete. Post may include some opinion without evaluated evidence. Initial post does not demonstrate comprehension of course materials. Specific terminology or examples learned in class are not included. Post is opinion based without evaluated evidence. No posting, post is off topic, post does not meet minimum criteria for demonstrating beginning level of comprehension. Post may be plagiarized, or use a high percentage of quotes that prevent demonstration of student’s comprehension. Real world application of knowledge 2 Initial post demonstrates that the learner can creatively and uniquely apply the concepts and examples learned in class to a personal or professional experience from their life. Initial post demonstrates that the learner can apply the concepts and examples learned in class to a current event. Initial post does not clearly demonstrate that the learner can apply the concepts and examples learned in class. Unclear link between the concepts and examples learned in class to personal or professional experience or to a current event. Initial does not demonstrates that the learner can apply the concepts and examples learned in class. No link to a personal or professional experience or to a current event is made in the post. No posting, post is off topic, post does not meet minimum criteria for demonstrating beginning level of application. Post may be plagiarized, or use a high percentage of quotes that prevent demonstration of student’s ability to apply comprehension. Active Forum Engagement 2 Posts one or more responses to a classmate or instructor replies to the learner’s initial post. Posts two or more responses to initial posts of classmates. Posts motivate group discussion and contributes to the learning community by doing 2+ of the following: · offering advice or strategy · posing a question, · providing an alternative point-of-view, · acknowledging similar experiences · sharing a resource Posts two responses to initial posts of classmates. Posts motivate group discussion and contribute to the learning community by doing 2+ of the following: · offering advice or strategy · posing a question, · providing an alternative point-of-view, · acknowledging similar experiences · sharing a resource Posts one response to initial post of classmate. Post motivates group discussion and contributes to the learning community by doing 1 of the following: · offering advice or strategy · posing a question, · providing an alternative point-of-view, · acknowledging similar experiences · sharing a resource Posts one response to initial post of classmate. Post does not clearly motivate group discussion or clearly contribute to the learning community. Responses do not: · offering advice or strategy · posing a question, · providing an alternative point-of-view, · acknowledging similar experiences · sharing a resource No peer responses are made. One or more peer responses of low quality (“good job, I agree”) may be made. Active Forum Presence 1 Learner posts 4+ different days in the learning week. Initial post is made by Thursday 11:55pm ET of the learning week. Response posts are made by Sunday 11:55pm ET of the learning week. Learner posts 3 different days in the learning week. Initial post is made by Friday 11:55pm ET of the learning week. Response posts are made by Sunday 11:55pm ET of the learning week. Learner posts 2 different days in the learning week. Initial post is made by Saturday 11:55pm ET of the learning week. Response posts are made by Sunday 11:55pm ET of the learning week. Learner posts 1 day in the learning week. Initial post is made by Sunday 11:55pm ET of the learning week. Response posts are made by Sunday 11:55pm ET of the learning week. Posts are not made during the learning week and therefore do not contribute to or enrich the weekly conversation. Writing skills 1 Post is 250+ words. All posts reflect widely accepted academic writing protocols like using capital letters (“I am” not “i am”), cohesive sentences, and no texting language. Dialogue is also polite and respectful of different points of view. Post is 250+ words. The majority of posts reflect widely-accepted academic writing protocols like using capital letters (“I am” not “i am”), cohesive sentences, and no texting language. Dialogue is polite and respectful of different points of view. Post is 150+ words. The majority of posts reflect widely-accepted academic writing protocols like using capital letters (“I am” not “i am”), cohesive sentences, and no texting language. Dialogue may not be respectful of different points of view. Post is 100+ words. The majority of the forum communication ignores widely-accepted academic writing protocols like capital letters (“I am” not “i am”), cohesive sentences, and texting; Dialogue may not be respectful of different points of view. No posting, post is off topic and does not meet minimum criteria for demonstrating beginning level of comprehension.

Paper For Above instruction

The question of double standards in gender roles has been a persistent theme in social research, particularly within feminist perspectives, as discussed in Andersen's Chapter 4. The double standard refers to the societal expectation that different rules or standards apply to individuals based on gender, often privileging men over women. In Andersen's analysis, this double standard manifests in various social domains, including sexuality, employment, and family responsibilities. Historically, this societal discrepancy has been rooted in patriarchal norms that sustain male dominance and female subservience.

Over time, the double standard has evolved, influenced by social movements, legal reforms, and changing cultural attitudes toward gender equality. For example, in the early 20th century, women faced severe restrictions on their autonomy, with societal expectations confining them to domestic roles. However, through feminist activism, gender roles have shifted markedly, reducing some of these double standards. Contemporary society has seen increased acceptance of women in leadership roles, sexual autonomy, and shared familial responsibilities, although some double standards persist. One notable change is the shift in perception of sexuality; whereas women were once judged more harshly for sexual activity, current societal attitudes are becoming more permissive, reflecting a gradual erosion of this double standard.

Connell’s stories of Adam Singer and Tip Southern, as detailed in Chapter 6, provide contrasting insights into masculinity in the United States. Adam Singer’s story embodies a traditional, hegemonic masculinity emphasizing strength, competitiveness, and emotional stoicism. Conversely, Tip Southern’s narrative highlights a more flexible, everyday masculinity that accommodates emotional expression and familial involvement. These stories illustrate how masculinity is not monolithic but varied according to social contexts and individual identity.

Connell’s analysis reveals that American masculinities are diverse and continually evolving. While hegemonic masculinity persists, alternative masculinities are gaining prominence, driven by social changes that challenge traditional notions. The stories of Singer and Southern exemplify how masculinity can be shaped by cultural expectations and personal choices, reflecting broader societal shifts toward inclusion and gender equality. In this way, the stories reveal that masculinity in the U.S. is complex, fragmented, and subject to ongoing negotiation, emphasizing the importance of understanding gender as a social construct rather than a fixed attribute.

References

• Connell, R. W. (2005). Masculinities. University of California Press.
• Andersen, M. L. (2018). Sociology: Understanding and Shaping Our World. Cengage Learning.
• Hooks, Bell. (2004). The Will to Change: Men, Masculinity, and Love. Atria Books.
• Kimmel, M. S. (2017). Manhood in America: A Cultural History. The University of Chicago Press.
• Connell, R. W., & Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender & Society, 19(6), 829-859.
• Jewkes, R., & Morrell, R. (2012). Gender and sex-based violence. The Lancet, 379(9823), 1410-1423.
• Jeffries, R. (2014). The Masculinity Myth: False Assumptions and Dangerous Delusions. Praeger.
• Connell, R. W. (1990). Other Voices: Theorizing Masculinity. In H. Brod & M. Kaufman (Eds.), Theorizing Masculinity (pp. 27-45). University of California Press.
• Kteily, N., & Bruneau, E. (2017). Invisible masculinity. Psychological Inquiry, 28(4-5), 607-613.
• Connell, R. W., & Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender & Society, 19(6), 829-859.