回到首頁
最新消息
活動預告
執行計畫
電子報
版權說明

聯絡我們

 
 

研究獎助—台大婦女與性別研究獎助歷屆獎助名單查詢

緣起說明流程相關心得

學年度: 2003
研究計畫名稱: 磨蹭的快感?-阿魯巴的男子氣概建構
研究者: 郭怡伶
學科: 社會學
學校系所: 臺灣大學建築與城鄉研究所
類別: 碩士論文
完成日期: 2005-07

論文目次: 第一章  緒論
 第一節  研究源起 
 第二節  阿魯巴基本介紹
第二章  文獻回顧及問題意識
 第一節  文獻回顧 
 第二節  問題意識 
第三章  研究發問與研究方法
 第一節  研究方法
 第二節  研究對象
 第三節  研究者與受訪者之間 
 第四節  研究限制
 第五節  研究反省
  
第四章  阿魯巴知識庫
 第一節  阿魯巴溯源
 第二節  阿魯巴展演
 第三節  阿魯巴參與者間的角色關係
 第四節  阿魯巴雙重性
  
第五章  阿魯巴好MEN
 第一節  團體內的階級及競爭意識
 第二節  男孩之間的殘酷文化
 第三節  男孩的友誼
 第四節  小雞雞、性遊戲、阿魯巴
 第五節  「型」於外的身體展現
 第六節  無所不在的恐懼
 第七節  對抗校園裡的權威
 第八節  排除女性的儀式
 第九節  團結就是力量
  
第六章 結論及建議
中文摘要:   阿魯巴是一種男性間的群體遊戲,動作是一群男性抓著、抬起某個男性,以胯下性器官對準硬物加以撞擊、磨蹭。兩岸三地及華人地區都有類似的行為,有各自不同的稱呼。阿魯巴是男性友誼的表達卻也是一種欺凌他人的方式,具有雙重性而兩者所含的比重視不同狀況的阿魯巴而定。
  阿魯巴是一種男性的下流遊戲作為學習男子氣概的操演過程。由男性進行阿魯巴的經驗,分析台灣校園裡建構的男子氣概包含強制傳統異性戀、厭惡女性以及同性戀恐懼症、以性作為男性本身及團體的認同、需要憑藉物的同性感情交流、男性間潛藏的競爭以及競爭而來的殘酷文化。這些男子氣概並藉由他律性彼此監督,確認每個男性都服從同樣的男子氣概建構。要藉著一次次的男性團體儀式凝聚、加強本身也提醒其他團體裡的男性,並在團體裡彼此監督、監視。表示男性對本身追求男性氣概的不安或不確定,需要一次次的凝聚來安定或肯定自己,內化男性對男子氣概的追求,男性總是處在一個極端不安,害怕自己不符合男性氣概的迷思中,可見男子氣概的認同本質是多麼脆弱、虛幻。
中文關鍵字: 阿魯巴、男性研究、男子氣概、恃強欺弱行為、霸凌、男性友誼、強制傳統、異性戀、厭惡女性、同性戀恐懼症、男性殘酷文化、生殖器認同、男性校園生活
英文摘要:   ‘Aruba’ is known as a kind of playing behavior in masculine community. This behavior proceeds from that a crowd of male grabs and lifts one male and then hit or rub victim’s reproductive organ against a hard objective. Not only in Taiwan, but in Hong Kong, mainland China and oversea Chinese community, similar behaviors in different names also prevail. Generally, Aruba is recognized as a form of masculine friendship expression. However, it also could be one way to bully other people. This explains the duality of Aruba. In most cases, the interpretation of Aruba and the weight of these two components are ambiguous. The explanation depends on different situation.
  Aruba is the process to accumulate masculinity in dirty play. By understanding of Aruba experience from male, this study analyzed the stereotype of constructed masculinity. The philosophy of masculinity includes: traditional heterosexual, misogyny, homophobia, identification male self and group with sex, the relying on homogeneous sentiment exchange, the competition among men, and men’s cruel culture coming from competition. Traditionally, the development of masculinity was supervised by male’s heteronomy and it confirms that each male will obey the same masculinity construction. This phenomenon expresses the uneasiness and uncertainty of pursuing the masculinity for a male. He needs condensations to stabilize or affirm himself time by time. This interprets that Male is always occupied by an extreme uneasiness. He is always afraid himself doesn’t satisfy the requirement of masculinity. Obviously, the masculinity essence is pretty fragile and unreal.
英文關鍵字: aruba;masculinity;bully;traditional heterosexual;misogyny;homophobia;identification of reproductive organ
參考書目:

  1. Arendell, T. (1997). Reflections on the researcher-researched relationship: A woman interviewing men. Qualitative Sociology, 20, 341-368
  2. Clatterbaugh, K. (2003). Contemporary perspectives on masculinity: Men, women, and politics in modern society(男性氣概的當代觀點(,劉建台、林宗德譯)台北:女書。
  3. Connell, R. W. (2004).性別 Gender (劉泗翰譯)台北:書林。
  4. Duncan, N. (1999). Sexual bullying: Gender conflict and pupil culture in secondary schools. London: Routledge.
  5. Fine, G. A. (1992). The dirty play of little boys. In M. S. Kimmel & M. A. Messner (Eds.), Men's lives (2nd ed., pp. 135-143). New York: Macmillan.
  6. Haywood, C., & Mac an Ghaill, M. (1996). Schooling masculinities. In M. Mac An Ghaill (Ed.), Understanding masculinities (pp. 50-60). Philadelphia: Open Universuty Press.
  7. James, K. D., & Thompson, M. (2000). 該隱的封印:揭開男孩世界的殘忍文化(吳書榆譯)。台北:商周。
  8. Johnson, A. G. (1997). The gender knot: Unraveling our patriarchal legacy:Temple University Press.
  9. Jordan, E. (1995). Fighting boys and fantasy play: The construction of masculinity in the early years of school.Gender & Education, 7,69-86.
  10. Kibby, M., & Costello, B. (1999). Displaying the phallus: Masculinity and the performance of sexuality on the internet. Men and Masculinities, 1(4), 352-364.
  11. Kimmel, M. (2000). A war against boys? Tikkun, 15(6), 57-60.
  12. Kimmel, M. S. (2001). Masculinity as homophobia: Fear, shame, and silence in the construction of gender identity. In T. F. Cohen (Ed.), Men and masculinity.(pp. 29-41): wadsworth.
  13. Lehne, G. K. (1992). Homophobia among men: Supporting and defining the male role. In M. S. Kimmel & M. A. Messner (Eds.), Men's lives (2nd ed., pp. 381-394). New York: Macmillan.
  14. Lyman, P. (1992). The fraternal bond as a joking relationship: A case study of the role of sexist jokes in male group bonding. In M. S. Kimmel & M. A. Messner (Eds.), Men's lives (pp. 158-160). New York: Macmillan.
  15. Mac an Ghaill, M. (1996). `What about the boys?' Schooling, class and crisis masculinity., Sociological Review , 44, 381-397).
  16. Nardi, P. M. (1992). Seamless souls: An introduction to men's friendship. In P. M. Nardi (Ed.), Men's friendships. Newbury Park,CA: Sage.
  17. Nightingale, R. (2001). Men have friends, too! In T. F. Cohen (Ed.), Men and masculinities, 3, 146-147
  18. Olweus, D. (1995). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Oxford : Blackwell.
  19. Olweus, D. (2003). A profile of bullying at school. Educational Leadership, 60(6), 12-17.
  20. Parker, A. (1996). The construction of masculinity within boys' physical education., Gender & Education, 8, 141-158.
  21. Phoenix, A., Frosh, S., & Pattman, R. (2003). Producing contradictory masculine subject positions: Narratives of threat, homophobia and bullying in 11-14 year old boys. Journal of Social Issues, 59, 179-195.
  22. Ramsay, K. (1996). Emotional labour and qualitative research: How I learned not to laugh or cry in the field. In E. S. Lyon & J. Busfield (Eds.), Methological imaginations (pp. 131-146).
  23. Sabo, D. (1992). Pigskin, patriarchy and pain. In M. S. Kimmel & M. A. Messner (Eds.), Men's lives (pp. 158-161). New York: Macmillan.
  24. Shwalbe, M. L., & Wolkomir, M. (2002). Interviewing men. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research: Context and method (pp. 203-219). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  25. Smith, P. K., Cowie, H., Olafsson, R. F., & Liefooghe, A. P. D. (2002). Definitions of bullying: A comparison of terms used, and age and gender differences, in a fourteen-country international comparison. Child Development, 73, 1119-1133.
  26. Swain, J. (2000). `The money is good, the fame's good, the girls are good': The role of playground football in the construction of young boys' masculinity in a junior school. British Journal of Sociology of Education , 21, 95-109.
  27. Thorne, B. (1993). Gender play: Girls and boys in school. New Brunswick, NJ: RutgersUniversity Press.
  28. 吳長穎(2003) 國小兒童校園環境知覺、被害經驗與被害恐懼感之關聯性研究. 國立中正大學犯罪防治研究所碩士論文。
  29. 林金珠(2003)雲林縣國中校園流行新詞之調查研究. 國立中正大學中國文學所碩士論文。
  30. 香港中文大學新聞與傳播學院 (2004) Happy corner玩過火 七成被con者非自願. 大學線月刊(U-BEAT MAGAZINE), 64期。
  31. 孫中興(1999)兩性的性與愛。科學月刊,350,110-114。
  32. 秦光輝(1997) 「當兵現形記」:從台灣男性兵役經驗看軍隊父權體制再生產的性別邏輯. 清華大學社會人類學研究所碩士論文。
  33. 畢恆達(2000)走入歧途的男性氣概養成過程。 兩性平等教育季刊, 第12期 , 頁44-46。
  34. 畢恆達(2002) 男人不能缺席(序一). Niklas Radstrom ,瑞典查普人-八個瑞典男人談平等、男性氣質和親職 (頁i-ii)。 台北:女書。
  35. 畢恆達(2003) 男性性別意識之形成。應用心理研究,18,頁51-84。
  36. 陳若璋(2001) 性犯罪心理學:心理治療與評估。台北:張老師文化。
  37. 黃淑玲(2003) 男子性與喝花酒文化:以bourdieu的性別支配理論為分析架構。 台灣社會學, 第五期, 頁73-132。
  38. 裴學儒(2001) 軍隊文化、男性氣概與性傾向壓迫:台灣男同志戀者的兵役經驗分析. 世新大學社會發展研究所碩士論文。
  39. 蔡秀華 (2003). 校園新詞探析-以雲嘉地區高中職為例. 中正大學中國文學研究所碩士論文.
  回上一頁

 
 

台大婦女研究室 Copyright 2005 AllRights Reserved
版權所有,未經授權,請勿轉載
電子信箱:wrp@ntu.edu.tw
地址:106台北市大安區羅斯福路四段一號