The reading Terrorist Transgressions: Exploring the Gendered Representations of the Terrorist, by Sue Malvern and Gabriel Koureas was interesting in that it made me question the notion of masculinity. I find it weird that terrorism is seen as an act of hypermasculinity. Men and masculinity are aften associated with violence. I am not sure if it is because of men’s history of barbarism or if its because of the chemical testosterone the masculine hormone. Why is masculinity associated with one’s ability to use violence and strength to get what you want? Its strange to see how giving ones life in an act of violence can be seen as the ultimate act of masculinity. This creates associations that all men are violent. This also creates the illusiom that men own the idea of violence. For example if a woman commits an act of violence she is seen as hysterical or emotionally driven by a male love interest. Women are not granted the ability to use agency to justify their actions. Women are seen as overly emotional and sensitive so any acts of violence will be associated with these characteristics. I do not think that violence needs to be associated with gender at all but rather as human nature. Men are not violent, humans are. When we start looking at violence as a human trait it becomes an action that can become viewed objectively.