Men are primarily and secondarily socialized into believing certain characteristics are definitive in determining their masculinity. These characteris...
GMAT Reading Comprehension : (RC) Questions
Source: Official Guide
...
...
Post a Query
Men are primarily and secondarily socialized into believing certain characteristics are definitive in determining their masculinity. These characteristics range from playing violently to not crying when they are injured. The socialization of masculinity in our society begins as early as the first stages of infancy, with awareness of adult gender role differences being internalized by children as young as two years old.
Studies show that advertising imagery equates masculinity with violence by portraying the trait of aggression as instrumental to establishing their masculinity. Lee Bowker, who researched the influence of advertisements on youth, asserts that toy advertisements featuring only boys depict aggressive behavior and that the aggressive behavior produces positive consequences more often than negative. Bowker also looked at commercials with boys that contain references to domination. His results indicated that 68.6% of the commercials positioned toward boys contain incidents of verbal and physical aggression. However there were no cross gender displays of aggressive behavior. Interestingly, not one single-sex commercial featuring girls showed any act of aggression. Bowker's research helps explain that it is not just the reinforcement of a child's close caretakers that lends legitimacy to aggressive masculine tendencies but society as a whole, using the medium of television.
William Pollack, a Harvard clinical psychologist, talks about how males have been put in a "gender straightjacket" that leads to anger, despair and often violence. Pollack states that society asks men to put a whole range of feelings and emotions behind a mask and shames them if they display any emotion. Pollack contends that boys are 'shame phobic', even killing, in extreme cases, to avoid dishonor. It appears that the standard defined by society allows men to express their emotion only through anger.
Ironically, though these rigid stereotypes of what it means to be a man have been inculcated from an early age, men are often criticized for being one-dimensional in their behavior and emotions.
Women often verbalize a desire for males to be sensitive and express their emotions. But male insensitivity is the culmination of a societal indoctrination begun at birth. Realistically, men are in a damned if they do, damned if they don't situation. If they fail to show their emotions, they are berated for being detached from the essence of what constitutes a human being. On the other hand, if a male decides to expose his emotions, he is often branded effeminate and regarded as inferior to other males who stick closer to their gender's traditional doctrine.
Ques. 1/3
According to the passage, the television commercials examined by Bowker
Solution
1. Passage Analysis:
Progressive Passage Analysis
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| Men are primarily and secondarily socialized into believing certain characteristics are definitive in determining their masculinity. | What it says: Society teaches men what makes them masculine through socialization. What it does: Introduces the main topic - how masculinity gets shaped by society Source/Type: Author's claim/thesis statement Connection to Previous Sentences: This is our opening statement - no prior information to connect to yet Visualization: Think of this like a training program: Society → Teaches Men → "These traits = masculinity" Reading Strategy Insight: This is setting up the main argument. We should expect examples and support to follow. |
| These characteristics range from playing violently to not crying when they are injured. | What it says: Masculine traits include being aggressive and hiding emotions/pain. What it does: Provides concrete examples of the "characteristics" mentioned in sentence 1 Source/Type: Author's examples Connection to Previous Sentences: This directly explains sentence 1! The vague "certain characteristics" now has specific examples Visualization: Masculine Characteristics: Violence (playing violently) + Emotional suppression (no crying when hurt) Reading Strategy Insight: Feel relieved here - this is clarification, not new complexity. The author is helping us understand what they meant. |
| The socialization of masculinity in our society begins as early as the first stages of infancy, with awareness of adult gender role differences being internalized by children as young as two years old. | What it says: This masculine socialization starts extremely early - even babies and toddlers learn it. What it does: Elaborates on WHEN the socialization from sentence 1 happens Source/Type: Author's claim with factual support Connection to Previous Sentences: This builds on sentence 1's "socialization" concept by answering "when does this happen?" Visualization: Timeline: Birth → Infancy → Age 2 → Gender roles already learned Reading Strategy Insight: We're getting deeper into the HOW and WHEN of the main concept, not jumping to new topics. What We Know So Far: Society teaches masculinity, it includes violence/emotional suppression, starts very early What We Don't Know Yet: Specific mechanisms, research evidence, consequences |
| Studies show that advertising imagery equates masculinity with violence by portraying the trait of aggression as instrumental to establishing their masculinity. | What it says: Research proves that ads teach boys that being aggressive = being masculine. What it does: Introduces research evidence to support the claims made so far Source/Type: Research findings Connection to Previous Sentences: This provides evidence for what we've been told! Sentence 2 said masculinity includes "playing violently" - now we see HOW society teaches this (through advertising) Visualization: Advertising → Shows aggression as positive for boys → Boys learn "aggression = masculinity" Reading Strategy Insight: The passage is now supporting its claims with evidence. This should increase our confidence in the argument. |
| Lee Bowker, who researched the influence of advertisements on youth, asserts that toy advertisements featuring only boys depict aggressive behavior and that the aggressive behavior produces positive consequences more often than negative. | What it says: Researcher Lee Bowker found that boys' toy ads show aggression as leading to good outcomes. What it does: Provides specific researcher and detailed findings to support the advertising claim Source/Type: Specific researcher's findings Connection to Previous Sentences: This gives us the specific researcher behind the "studies" mentioned in sentence 4. We're getting details, not new concepts Visualization: Boys' Toy Ads: Show aggression → Aggression leads to positive outcomes (winning, success, etc.) → Boys learn aggression is good Reading Strategy Insight: We're diving deeper into the same evidence theme, just getting more specific details. |
| Bowker also looked at commercials with boys that contain references to domination. His results indicated that 68.6% of the commercials positioned toward boys contain incidents of verbal and physical aggression. However there were no cross gender displays of aggressive behavior. | What it says: Bowker's study found most boys' commercials show aggression and domination, but only boys are shown being aggressive. What it does: Provides specific statistics and additional findings from Bowker's research Source/Type: Specific research data Connection to Previous Sentences: More details from the same Bowker study - we're getting the complete picture of his findings Visualization: Boys' Commercials: 68.6% show aggression + domination, 0% show girls being aggressive → Clear gender messaging Reading Strategy Insight: The statistics make the argument more concrete. We're building a stronger evidence base for the same core idea. |
| Interestingly, not one single-sex commercial featuring girls showed any act of aggression. | What it says: Girls' commercials contained zero aggression. What it does: Emphasizes the contrast between boys' and girls' advertising Source/Type: Research finding with author's emphasis ("Interestingly") Connection to Previous Sentences: This reinforces the contrast hinted at in the previous sentence about "no cross gender displays" Visualization: Boys' Commercials: 68.6% aggressive vs. Girls' Commercials: 0% aggressive Reading Strategy Insight: The author is emphasizing a key point - this gender difference is significant to the argument. |
| Bowker's research helps explain that it is not just the reinforcement of a child's close caretakers that lends legitimacy to aggressive masculine tendencies but society as a whole, using the medium of television. | What it says: Bowker's findings show that society (through TV), not just parents, teaches boys to be aggressive. What it does: Synthesizes Bowker's findings and connects them back to the main argument about societal influence Source/Type: Author's interpretation of the research Connection to Previous Sentences: This wraps up the Bowker evidence and connects it back to sentence 1's "socialization" concept Visualization: Sources of Masculine Socialization: Parents + Society (TV ads) → Reinforces aggressive tendencies Reading Strategy Insight: This is a summary/synthesis moment - the author is helping us see how the evidence fits the bigger picture. |
| William Pollack, a Harvard clinical psychologist, talks about how males have been put in a "gender straightjacket" that leads to anger, despair and often violence. | What it says: Psychologist William Pollack says men are trapped in rigid gender roles that cause negative emotions and violence. What it does: Introduces a second expert who discusses the consequences of masculine socialization Source/Type: Expert opinion from clinical psychologist Connection to Previous Sentences: This shifts from HOW masculinity is taught (Bowker's advertising research) to WHAT HAPPENS as a result Visualization: Gender Straightjacket → Restricts men → Leads to: anger, despair, violence Reading Strategy Insight: We're moving from evidence about the process to evidence about the consequences. Still building on the same core argument. |
| Pollack states that society asks men to put a whole range of feelings and emotions behind a mask and shames them if they display any emotion. | What it says: Society forces men to hide their emotions and punishes them for showing feelings. What it does: Provides specific details about what the "gender straightjacket" involves Source/Type: Pollack's specific claims Connection to Previous Sentences: This explains what the "gender straightjacket" from the previous sentence actually means - connects directly to sentence 2's "not crying when injured" Visualization: Society's Message to Men: Hide emotions behind mask + Shame for showing feelings = Emotional suppression Reading Strategy Insight: We're seeing the same concepts from early in the passage (emotional suppression) supported by expert opinion. |
| Pollack contends that boys are 'shame phobic', even killing, in extreme cases, to avoid dishonor. | What it says: Boys are so afraid of shame that some will kill to avoid being dishonored. What it does: Provides the most extreme consequence of the emotional suppression Source/Type: Pollack's research/clinical observation Connection to Previous Sentences: This shows the extreme end result of the "shaming" mentioned in the previous sentence Visualization: Fear of Shame → Extreme measures → Even killing to avoid dishonor Reading Strategy Insight: This escalates the consequences to show how serious the problem is. |
| It appears that the standard defined by society allows men to express their emotion only through anger. | What it says: Society only lets men show one emotion: anger. What it does: Synthesizes Pollack's points into a clear conclusion about limited emotional expression Source/Type: Author's interpretation/summary Connection to Previous Sentences: This summarizes the Pollack evidence and connects back to the "anger" mentioned earlier. Also links to sentence 2's emotional suppression theme Visualization: Men's Allowed Emotions: Anger ✓, Everything else ✗ Reading Strategy Insight: Another synthesis moment - the author is crystallizing the expert evidence into a clear takeaway. What We Know So Far: Society teaches masculinity early, uses advertising, suppresses emotions except anger, leads to violence What We Don't Know Yet: Any contradictions or complications to this picture |
| Ironically, though these rigid stereotypes of what it means to be a man have been inculcated from an early age, men are often criticized for being one-dimensional in their behavior and emotions. | What it says: It's ironic that men are criticized for being emotionally limited when society taught them to be that way. What it does: Introduces a contradiction/irony in how society treats men Source/Type: Author's observation about societal contradiction Connection to Previous Sentences: This references the "early age" socialization from sentence 3 and the emotional restrictions we've been discussing Visualization: Society: Teaches emotional restriction from birth → Then criticizes men for being emotionally limited Reading Strategy Insight: The word "Ironically" signals we're about to see a contradiction or complication in the situation. |
| Women often verbalize a desire for males to be sensitive and express their emotions. | What it says: Women want men to be emotional and sensitive. What it does: Provides a specific example of the criticism/contradiction mentioned in the previous sentence Source/Type: Author's observation about women's stated preferences Connection to Previous Sentences: This gives us a concrete example of the "criticism for being one-dimensional" from the previous sentence Visualization: Women's Desires: Want men to be sensitive + express emotions (opposite of what society taught men) Reading Strategy Insight: This makes the contradiction more specific and relatable. |
| But male insensitivity is the culmination of a societal indoctrination begun at birth. | What it says: Men's emotional insensitivity is the result of lifelong social conditioning. What it does: Explains WHY men behave this way - connects back to the main argument Source/Type: Author's explanatory statement Connection to Previous Sentences: This connects the contradiction back to our main thesis - references the "early age" socialization and "from birth" timing we learned about earlier Visualization: Birth → Lifelong societal conditioning → Male insensitivity (but society criticizes this result) Reading Strategy Insight: The author is defending men by explaining that their behavior is not their fault but society's creation. |
| Realistically, men are in a damned if they do, damned if they don't situation. | What it says: Men can't win - they're criticized no matter what they do. What it does: Summarizes the contradiction into a clear, sympathetic statement Source/Type: Author's summary/conclusion Connection to Previous Sentences: This crystallizes the irony we've been building toward - the contradiction between social conditioning and social criticism Visualization: Men's Dilemma: Follow social conditioning → Criticized for being insensitive OR Reject conditioning → Face other criticism Reading Strategy Insight: This is the main conclusion about the contradiction - a simple, memorable takeaway. |
| If they fail to show their emotions, they are berated for being detached from the essence of what constitutes a human being. On the other hand, if a male decides to expose his emotions, he is often branded effeminate and regarded as inferior to other males who stick closer to their gender's traditional doctrine. | What it says: Men are criticized both for hiding emotions (called inhuman) and for showing emotions (called feminine/inferior). What it does: Provides the specific details of how men are "damned if they do, damned if they don't" Source/Type: Author's elaboration with specific examples Connection to Previous Sentences: This gives us the concrete details of what the "damned if they do, damned if they don't" means - not new information, just specifics Visualization: Men's No-Win Situation: Hide emotions → called "detached/inhuman" vs. Show emotions → called "effeminate/inferior" Reading Strategy Insight: Feel confident here - this is just spelling out what we already understood. The author is helping us see both sides of the impossible situation clearly. What We Know Now: Complete picture of how society creates masculine conditioning, the results, and the contradictory expectations that trap men |
2. Passage Summary:
Author's Purpose:
To explain how society creates a no-win situation for men by teaching them restrictive masculine behaviors and then criticizing them for those same behaviors.
Summary of Passage Structure:
In this passage, the author builds their argument in clear steps to show how society traps men in contradictory expectations:
- First, the author establishes that society teaches men from birth that masculinity means being aggressive and hiding emotions.
- Next, the author provides research evidence showing how advertising reinforces these masculine stereotypes by promoting aggression in boys' commercials but not girls' commercials.
- Then, the author presents expert psychological evidence explaining how this social conditioning forces men into emotional suppression that can lead to serious consequences like violence.
- Finally, the author reveals the contradiction by showing how society criticizes men for being emotionally limited even though society itself created this behavior, leaving men unable to win no matter what they do.
Main Point:
Men are trapped in an impossible situation where society conditions them from birth to suppress emotions and act aggressively, but then criticizes them for being emotionally limited, creating a no-win scenario where they face criticism whether they follow or reject traditional masculine expectations.
Question Analysis:
This question asks us to identify what Bowker's television commercial research specifically revealed about the behavior displayed by boys in commercials. We need to find the exact findings from his study.
Connecting to Our Passage Analysis:
From our passage analysis, we identified key information about Bowker's research:
- Bowker studied toy advertisements and commercials featuring boys
- His results showed that 68.6% of commercials positioned toward boys contain incidents of verbal and physical aggression
- The passage specifically states: "However there were no cross gender displays of aggressive behavior"
- The passage emphasizes: "Interestingly, not one single-sex commercial featuring girls showed any act of aggression"
These findings reveal a clear pattern about WHO the aggression was directed toward in the commercials Bowker examined.
Prethinking:
The key insight is in the phrase "no cross gender displays of aggressive behavior." This means that when boys showed aggression in commercials, it was not directed across gender lines (boys toward girls or girls toward boys). Since girls showed no aggression at all, and boys showed aggression but not toward girls, the boys must have been showing aggression only toward other boys. This creates a same-gender pattern of aggressive behavior in the commercials.
Answer Choices Explained
A
Showed boys in more acts of verbal and physical aggression than of domination
Why It's Wrong:
- The passage provides specific statistics: 68.6% of boys' commercials showed verbal and physical aggression, while Bowker "also looked at commercials with boys that contain references to domination"
- No comparative statistics are given between acts of aggression versus acts of domination
- The passage presents both findings as significant without suggesting one occurs more than the other
Common Student Mistakes:
- Did you assume that because aggression was mentioned with a specific percentage (68.6%), it must be more frequent than domination?
→ Remember that the passage can mention different findings without making quantitative comparisons between them - Did you focus on the statistics rather than what the question is specifically asking about?
→ Focus on WHO the aggression was directed toward, not the frequency of different types of behavior
B
Showed boys in more acts of domination than of verbal and physical aggression
Why It's Wrong:
- This makes the opposite assumption of choice A without textual support
- The passage mentions both domination and aggression as findings from Bowker's research but provides no comparison of their relative frequency
- The 68.6% statistic applies to verbal and physical aggression, but no percentage is given for domination references
Common Student Mistakes:
- Did you think that because domination was mentioned second, it must be more prevalent?
→ Order of presentation doesn't indicate frequency or importance - Are you trying to make comparisons that the passage doesn't support?
→ Stick to what the passage explicitly states rather than inferring quantitative relationships
C
Showed boys in acts of verbal and physical aggression only towards other boys
Why It's Right:
- The passage explicitly states "there were no cross gender displays of aggressive behavior"
- Since girls showed no aggression ("not one single-sex commercial featuring girls showed any act of aggression"), and boys showed aggression but not toward girls, the aggression must be directed toward other boys
- This interpretation is consistent with Bowker's findings about same-sex commercials and gender-specific advertising patterns
Key Evidence: "However there were no cross gender displays of aggressive behavior. Interestingly, not one single-sex commercial featuring girls showed any act of aggression."
D
Showed boys in acts of verbal and physical aggression only towards other girls
Why It's Wrong:
- This directly contradicts the passage's statement about "no cross gender displays of aggressive behavior"
- If boys showed aggression only toward girls, that would be cross-gender aggression, which the research explicitly did not find
- The passage emphasizes that girls' commercials showed zero aggression, supporting the idea that boys and girls were not interacting aggressively
Common Student Mistakes:
- Did you misread "no cross gender displays" as meaning boys only targeted girls?
→ "No cross gender displays" means boys and girls were NOT shown being aggressive toward each other - Are you confusing the targets of aggression with the gender showing aggression?
→ Focus on WHO receives the aggression, not just who displays it
E
Showed boys in acts of verbal and physical aggression towards other boys and girls
Why It's Wrong:
- This contradicts the finding of "no cross gender displays of aggressive behavior"
- If boys showed aggression toward both boys and girls, that would include cross-gender aggression, which Bowker's research did not find
- The passage clearly indicates that aggressive behavior was contained within same-sex commercials without cross-gender targeting
Common Student Mistakes:
- Did you think "no cross gender displays" meant something different than boys and girls not being aggressive toward each other?
→ This phrase specifically means aggression did not cross gender lines - Are you assuming that since boys showed aggression, they must have targeted everyone?
→ The research specifically found limitations on who was targeted by aggressive behavior
Rate this Solution
Tell us what you think about this solution
Forum Discussions
Start a new discussion
Post
Load More