Analyze Katz’s analysis of diverse masculinities and apply to one of the traits of inclusive leadership. 2. In what ways do popular culture stereotypes about men and gender infiltrate the workplace? Post a substantive response to the question (minimum 250 words).
Also reply to the following 2 classmates with at least 100 words
Kat’z analysis of diverse masculinities would tie into the traits of inclusive leadership when we look at men individually instead of as a group. I think we can tell that while there are many men that fit into the category of dominant and violent, some dont fit into that. Some men are leaders that also view women as equal counterparts that help a business grow, rather than a person that is incapable of helping advance a business. I would say that this would fit into the collaboration category of inclusive leadership. A man that collaborate with all of its staff instead of just one group or person is opening up a new path for growth.
Popular culture likes to make men out to be either powerful and dominant in the workforce, or rough and hands on. I would say that this could be true for some men, but it doesnt always have to be true. We see a lot of men that are the leader of a company. Many of these men hold a powerful role in the workforce, but they do not use their power to dominate over their employees. Men also take on the role of mechanics or construction workers, along with many other trade jobs, but we know that women can also work trades as well. Popular culture shows us that men are this way and we see a lot of the stereotypes in the workforce. It is important however to recognize that men also take on the role of stay at home dads and nurses or doctors as well. Men can also be nurturing, despite what popular culture says.
According to Katz, masculinity is seen as using force, violence, and physical toughness by men to gain and maintain power and control. Men strive to be the “top dog,” it’s the way they are raised. When discussing diverse masculinities in the workplace, men will do almost anything to make sure they are in control. Examples of this can be directed towards women by putting them down or pretending they don’t exist. The same behavior could also be directed towards men who possess feminine attributes.
A good leader uses cognizance of bias in meetings or other areas in the workplace. Males who hold leadership positions that are self-aware and understand the unconscious bias of a group are more likely to establish company normals to try and eliminate those bias. The company may implement strategies such as allowing everyone the opportunity to speak before adjourning the meeting, allowing the person speaking the ability to complete their thought process without interruption. Furthermore, bias can also be addressed by how the room is set up. If the position of authority is unknown (no podium), coworkers are more likely to feel an openness to discuss matters at hand and feel equally important as others in the room.
As portrayed in “Tough Guise II,” we discover that men learn how to behave by watching videos, sports, advertising, video games, and political culture. They try to mimic what they see and perceive as cultural norms based on things like race, age, gender, ethnicity, geographical background, and socio-economic standings. This can be witnessed in the workplace by something as simple as a handshake between the organizational leader and a coworker of similar cultural background.
owever, it is in reality a long way from clear that possibility involves any sort of plausibility. If there should be an occurrence of a personality there is no conceivable world where the M can break into pieces from B if M = B, There is no conceivable world in which a single man isn't an unmarried man. So also, if water is H2O there is no conceivable world in which water couldn't be H2O. Nonetheless, despite the fact that it isn't be possible to you that there can be unhitched males that are not unmarried as long as you comprehend the significance of the word lone ranger, it may appear to be possible that water could be something different than H2O. This, in any case, is presumably in light of the fact that the character among water and H20 is an a posteriori personality (and thus the need that acquires could be an a posteriori need) and not a from the earlier way of life as the character among unhitched male and unmarried man. So despite the fact that it may appear as though it is possible that the psyche and the body can exist independently, it doesn't pursue that it is really conceivable that they can exist independently if the character among brain and cerebrum is an a posteriori personality. It very well may be contended that the possibility contention twists Leibniz' law of indiscernibles and makes an intensional misrepresentation. Because I can consider two things as independent it doesn't pursue that they are isolated – just that I don't have the foggiest idea about that they are something very similar. You can't reach ontological determinations about how the world is and what exists in it from epistemological premises of what you can or can't question or consider. A commonplace issue that faces substance dualism is the issue of different personalities. The issue of different personalities is the topic of how we can understand that there are psyches known to man other than our own. We each experience, or introspect, our own personalities straightforwardly, from 'inside' yet our knowledge into other people's psyches is by and large extraordinary. We can't experience other people's psychological states. It creates the impression that all we have to go on is other people's direct which is conveyed through their bodies. This is a test for substance dualism in that in the event that psyches and bodies are free of one another, at that point in what manner may I get from seeing a body that there is a mind 'associated'. Various bodies could all be machines, adjusted to go about as they do, yet with no psychological states. In the event that there are no different personalities, by then my mind is the extraordinary case that exists. This is solipsism and along these lines the test to substance dualism is, how might we refute that solipsism is? It could be contended that we can induce the presence of psyches from practices: This conduct has a psychological reason That conduct has a psychological reason The third conduct has a psychological reason and so forth.>