Manly men?

"The Glorification of the prizefighter and the workingman bespoke the ambivalence of middle-class men about their own gender status, for it suggested that they too, regarded such men as more manly than themselves-more physical, less civilized, less effeminate.  It also suggest that when middle-class gay men celebrated such working as paragons of masculinity, they only followed the lead of other men in their class."-pg 114

This passage struck me for two reasons because the idea of gender status and not being sure in one's own being a two way relationship.  It's very similar to the idea of "inversion" in my mind, but the main difference being that one is sure of their gender, but they're perceived as the wrong one or they were assigned the wrong one (transgendered?) as opposed to being unsure of their status within the gender. The other reason is for the idea of class status in relation to gender-middle class men seeing themselves as less manly than their working class counterparts, despite the fact that many working class men were the most likely to engage in more traditionally homosexual behavior.
It's such a huge contrast to how we now think, with the idea of adopting mannerisms that are true to one gender more than the other.  Women are told to "man up" and sometimes, we tell men that it's okay to cry. However, there are still many people that like to keep "manly" and "womanly" traits upon a binary scale.  Of course, people fall on different places between these two extremes.
Is there something to be said for this continued perception of what's masculine and what's feminine and our slow mixture of the two?  Is this a positive change for a better relationship between people of different races, genders and classes?  Personally, I feel like it's adding division where there is already a copious amount.  Maybe we should stop looking at the class binary and the sexuality binary and realize we're all on a sliding scale?

Coalhouse, Class, Dreams, and Listening to my Mother's Advice (Also, I quoted CULLEN)

A Brief Anecdote: On my first day of college, Mama Dvorak took me aside and said "Beth.  We're not successful.  We all work hard, but no one in our family is successful." She laughed as my mouth hung open, trying to sound out her words for myself.  "B-b-but, mom..."

"Oh Bethie," she said, laughing at the fact that I am easily stupefied by her advice "I'm reassuring you." 

We talked a lot in class the other day about class and how people perceive different classes.  Higher class people can be seen as braggarts and lower class people can be seen as lazy.  To quote Paige "Everyone can pull themselves up by their bootstraps!" (Note that we both laughed at the absurdity of this statement). We all want to reach that middle point, or so it seems.  The extremely wealthy people I've encountered at St. Olaf don't use the word "rich".  They say that they're "well off" or "my parents work really hard." And I'll admit, I've later mocked them behind their backs, asking "how can you determine your self-worth by what your parents make?"

But the reverse is also true.  I pride myself on being able to afford to go here; I pulled myself up by my proverbial bootstraps and I have the scholarships and grants to prove it.  Does that fact make someone seem more noble in the eyes of their peers, or less so?  We all know that there shouldn't be a stereotype surrounding who has what amount of disposable income; but since we live in an imperfect world, I'm more inclined to ask which stereotype is more palatable.  Would we rather have someone like Tateh and Coalhouse succeed, or someone like the boy?  We can argue that we're past all that, but I think that would be a lie based on the noblest of intentions-good and idealistic, but a lie nonetheless.
But to get back to my anecdote, I think the dreams of class and transcending those bonds, a dream shared by Morgan, Tateh, Ford and Coalhouse, is probably one of the primary motivators of my mother's little speech.  It took me a long time to figure out, but I think that she was trying to say, in her vague/roundabout way was this: "Beth, none of us are successful.  Your family is made up of teachers and librarians and landscapers.  You don't have to do any of those things.  You can be whatever you want.  You may not be successful to some, but you'll be happy. You're smart and beautiful and you were always my favorite."  (At least, I hope that's what she's saying).  And sometimes, people like (SPOILER IF YOU HAVEN'T FINISHED) Tateh transcend their class. The great thing about America is that we're nourished by that dream, it seems so much more attainable because it's embedded into our psyches.

  To quote Cullen: "And like other American Dreams, the power of this one lay in a sense of collective ownership: anyone can get ahead."

Maybe my mom doesn't phrase it correctly, but if her optimism doesn't reflect this, I don't know what does.