Tough Guise

“Tough Guise” In the 1999 film, “Tough Guise”, anti-violence educator, Jackson Katz, takes viewers through the penalties of violence, media, and the crisis in masculinity. He explains masculinity as a “mask” worn by men to shield vulnerability and hide their humanity. This “mask” has taken a lot forms but the one Katz argues to be the most important is what he refers to as the “tough guise”. First I will explain Katz’s analysis and argument about the nature of “tough guise”, then the many variables and social dynamics that sustain the “tough guise” over time; next, the various psychological and sociological consequences that result from the “tough guise”; and finally, I will describe how the “tough guise” is rooted in uncritical thinking. First, let’s take a deep look into Katz’s analysis and arguments about the nature of “tough guise”. He explains it as a “front that so many men put up that’s based on an extreme notion of masculinity that emphasizes toughness, and physical strength, and gaining the respect and admiration of others through violence with an implicit threat of it” (Katz). At an early age, males link a connection between being a “real man” and putting up a “tough guise”. Meaning, in order for a male to be looked at as “manly”, he can only show the world certain parts of himself that culture taught him as correct When Katz interviewed young men and asked them what qualities make a male a “real man”, he got answers such as independent, strong, intimidating, powerful, rugged, respected, muscular, athletic, and most common, tough. In contrast, he then asked the same boys what they would get called if they would not measure up to being a “real man”. Some
Wanders 2 of their answers included: pussy, b*tch, mommy’s boy, girly, wimp, queer, sissy and most common, fag. Katz then concludes that no matter if a man is rich, poor, African American, Caucasian, or any other race, to be a “real man” is all looked at in the same way. It means to fit into a