HuffPo Live on Hypermasculinity

I got a most delightful invitation today to join a panel on HuffPo Live today on the topic of hypermasculinity. Apparently the post that caught their eye was one I did last week on male beauty as a joke. Unfortunately my day job kept me from taking them up on their offer.

Go give the cast a listen and share your thoughts on the topic.

Male Beauty as a joke.....

If you didn't know I've been on a bit of a break from the whole blogging about gender thing for last few weeks. Mainly I've melted into the shadows because of work but personal stuff is eating up my time as well. But gender discourse waits for no one.

I'm sure by now you have seen the Dove beauty ad (I think there's only one, but there might be more) where women give descriptions of themselves to a former forensics artist and he draws a picture. Then he gets descriptions from a different person that had spoken to those women beforehand and draws a picture based on that. 

He then showed the women a side by side comparison of the two sketches in order to show them the difference in how they perceive themselves and how others perceive them. An interesting way to help women notice that their thoughts on how they look may be getting influenced by the very pressures they feel to look good in the first place.

Now of course when something gains a lot of traction the parodies will be soon to follow.

I saw this one over at stonerwithaboner:

In this parody its a couple of guys describing themselves to a former forensics artist as said artist draws a picture and then the artist draws another picture of the guys in question, this time going by descriptions given to him by women that the guys had gotten friendly with ahead of time. 

In the end we see that the guys give descriptions of themselves that overestimate their beauty while the descriptions given by the women are treated as more accurate. Choice words include "rapey eyes" and one who looked like "something out of Mordor".

Even more interesting is the ending line, "Men: You're less beautiful than you think."

There's more than one parody but I noticed something in this one and a few others that I've watched.

The end result is that the guys in the "ad" are actually a lot less attractive than they think they are.

Now I've said a thing or two about male body image before and I can't help but wonder about how these parodies use the idea that a guy could be worried about his appearance as the butt of a joke. Now let me be clear. I'm not trying to say that the subject of men and body image should be immune from the far reaching tentacles of comedic mockery and satire.

No what I am saying is that is might be worth looking at how the very real issue of male body image and how it is not talked about that often in a serious manner is being seen through this lens of parody.

Here's what I'm gathering from this.

Usually parody and satire are used to take a topic and run in the opposite direction with it. For example have you ever heard music by Weird Al Yankovik? Most of his musical performances are of him taking a seriously created song (usually a popular hit) and writing a version of the song that is dripping with sarcasm and comedy. Micheal Jackson gave us "Beat It", Weird Al turned it into "Eat It". Coolio gave us "Gangsta Paradise", Weird Al turned it into "Amish Paradise".

But with these parodies they don't seem to be taking something real and running in an opposite direction but rather taking something real and running even farther in the same direction.

Instead of taking a real issue of guys thinking they are not very attractive and being shown they are, they are thinking they are attractive and being shown that they really aren't.

Or at least that is what it seems like to me.

Maybe I'm put off by this because I'm thinking about it from the perspective of a guy that hasn't thought too highly about his own looks (trust me on this, I'm still fighting back the desire to counter when my girlfriend says I look good). Maybe I'm wondering just how representative of the male population this parody is.

Do most men really have an overestimated sense of how they look, where in reality they are not all that attractive? Is that overestimated sense of how they look coming from accepting that they are not all that attractive but knowing that they aren't supposed to talk about it (much less act on it) they use that overestimated sense of how they look as a mask to hide real pain?

And about the mask part. Did you notice that the guys in that parody made themselves out to look like attractive celebrities? Meaning they weren't painting themselves up as attractive guys that aren't famous thus people don't know about them. They were painting themselves up as attractive guys that are known far and wide. That's about as masky as you get.

Or am I thinking too much about this?

What do you folks think?

Why were they saving Private Ryan?

I'm sure you've seen the movie Saving Private Ryan before right? Tom Hanks playing a squad leader that is sent into WW2 era Europe in order to find Private Ryan before he is killed in combat.

I've seen the movie before and I thought I realized what the film was about. I was of the mind that the film was about trying to save the life of a man who was had already suffered so much loss (having lost three brothers to the war already, making him the last one). But thanks to this comment I read today at Good Men Project by wellokaythen, I'm not sure:

Several people have mentioned _Saving Private Ryan_.
The movie is NOT really all about men. Only on a superficial level is it only about men.
Even though all the main characters are (cis-)male, there a gigantic inter-gender dynamic at the heart of the plot. The whole point of the plot, and the source of title of the movie, is about a woman. There is a very illustrative moment in the film that clearly suggests a sense of male disposability relative to women. At one point, a male character quotes a letter from Lincoln to a woman in the Civil War, thanking her for sacrificing her sons on the altar of the republic. Anyone notice that? Just think about that for a moment. Her heroism comes continuing to live after the actual death of men in her family.

The whole premise of the last 2/3 of the movie, whether this premise is all that realistic or not, is to prevent a woman back home from becoming any sadder at the loss of one more of her children. Not save her life, but to prevent her grief from getting any bigger. If momma Ryan loses one more son, she may not be able to take it. (Think how the sons themselves might feel about it….) The entire point of “saving” one soldier is not for his own sake, not because his life is precious on its own, but to save his mother any more grief. Several of the soldiers on the mission point out the absurdity of this, and Private Ryan himself balks at this illogical idea, but what answer do they get? Do your job. You’ll live if I order you to live, and you’ll risk your life if I tell you to risk your life.

I found the masculine themes in the movie to be somewhat muted, actually. There’s just about a bare minimum of attention to the fact that they are men as men, very little conversation with each other about manhood. There’s no traditional John Wayne war movie swagger or monologues about “being a man” or long explanations about women. No one’s called a dick or a pussy or talks very much about sexual conquest. They don’t talk about penises or testicles. Their masculinity might even be downplayed more in the movie than it was in real life. They hardly talk like what you’d expect soldiers to talk like, actually. (What you might call the Ambrose-ization of the image of the American GI in WWII. Apparently we’re supposed to think the D-Day boys went to Normandy straight from Sunday School!) Even when the officers use the term “men,” it’s almost a bureaucratic term. They’re not so much individual gender units anymore as they are serial numbers.

When I think about I believe wellokaythen has a point.

Was the US Army trying to send Private Ryan back home for his own sake or was it for the sake of his mother back home?

If there had been a fifth Ryan son living somewhere, would this event have even happened?

Why do damaging gender roles exist?

So I'm reading a post at GMP (I would post a link but forgot to add it when I had this on my mind and have since forgotten it) when I come across this:

Why does child custody in divorce cases often default to the female parent? Because of the cultural expectations that men aren’t nurturers or care-givers.

So my mind got to turning about exactly why these cultural expectations exist. What purpose do they serve.

I'm sure that there are two explanations for this that you have probably heard countless times, depending on who you listen to.

I'll call this one "No it's all about the women!!!!"

The reason it happens is because women in order to play their assigned role in the system, culturally and socially influenced into parenting. This explanation seems to go with the idea that the narratives that are in effect here exist for the purpose of keeping women in a set place and any harm that befalls men is not a feature of the system but a bug. Collateral damage if you will. The place where they are deemed most useful to the system.

I'll call this one "No it's all about the men!!!!"

The reason it happens is because men, in order to play their assigned role in the system, are culturally and socially influenced away from parenting. This explanation seems to go with the idea that the narratives in effect here exist for the purpose of keeping men in a set place and any harm that befalls women is not a feature of the system but a bug. Collateral damage if you will. The place where they are deemed most useful to the system.

Now let me run this one by you. I'll call it, "We're all getting dumped on."

In order to keep men and women in their respective assigned roles cultural narratives were developed and maintained by the system to influence men away from parenting and women into parenting. This explanation seems to go with the idea that these narratives in effect here are in effect because the system wants to keep men and women in their respective roles for the sake of the system itself aka places where they are most useful to the system.

I think those first two explanations don't tell the whole story.

It seems that those first two are coming from a lens that starts off deciding that one (or the other) is the primary target of a system (you may know it as "Who has it worse?") that is really mowing down everyone regardless of gender, race or whatever.

I'm starting to think that despite what people on different sides say I'm just a lonely ranger in thinking that that maybe, just maybe, this system wasn't designed with the purpose of harming any specific group.

What do you think?

Seeking the Source

(Let me say off the bat that the things in this post are nowhere near my own experience. I've been frustrated with women for various reasons throughout the years and yes some of that frustration is related to some of what I talk about in this post. But its not an exact telling of my own experiences. Just one possible (and I think seldom explored in casual environments) outcome of such experiences.

So please don't think that the "Imagine...." portions of the post are actual recalls from my own life. They aren't. But I bet they have happened to other men.)

Okay one thing I like trying to do is stop and think about my anger and where it comes from. While in a twitter conversation a few days ago I mentioned where I thought some of the anti-woman behavior that is exhibited by some men. I think it's important to go over this because frankly I think the usual explanations are not always right. In fact I think they aren't just wrong but people who tout these reasons are more concerned about being right than actually resolving anger that real causes get missed.

Tell me if these sounds familiar.

"Men are angry at women because women dare to have opinions of their own."

"Men are angry at women because they are seeing their sense of entitlement being challenged."

"Men are angry at women because they are afraid of losing their male privilege."

"Men are angry at women because the use their anger to keep women in place."

After putting some real thought I can honestly say that these reasons miss quite a bit when it comes to a man's anger toward women. Why is that?

Because all of those usual suspect reasons are based on the assumption that no woman has ever done anything that contributed to that anger. No the anger is always something that men are just taught or that it comes from women not doing what they are "supposed to do". Now I'm not saying that that never happens, I'm saying there are other ways to develop and foster that anger. I want to explore one possible way.

Imagine for a moment being a young boy.

Imagine for a moment being a young boy that when attacked by a girl not only was his pain not acknowledged but the figures of authority actually defended the girl's actions (and I don't mean that bullshit "oh it wasn't that serious"* I mean straight up "you deserved to be hit by her"**) . Oh and she gets to freely laugh about and brag about it too.

Imagine being taught that while it is a severe taboo to hit a girl, girls have free reign to hit you.*

Imagine being taught that regardless of the situation you are expected to always, ALWAYS be mindful of your response to female violence, while women are free to respond as they wish to yours.***

Now imagine that all that pain, frustration, and hurt is not just dismissed, but possibly even ignored.

Not just "oh it wasn't that bad" but immediately responding by comparing it to how women feel and are treated as if the feelings and treatment of women are the litmus test for the validity of men's experiences and feelings.

Or how about even being told that because you are male your experience did not happen. Yes somehow your gender protects you from whatever it was that happened to you.

Imagine being older and a woman commits an act of violence against you.

Imagine that that is what you have to face when you reach out for help, even from people who brand themselves as being supportive or progressive.

Image that after being treated that way you the immediate response you get when telling other how you have been treated is to minimize your experiences, if not defend those who treated you that way.

Imagine that on everyday tv that female against male violence is actually okay and even something to be portrayed as funny in order to sell products.****

I know its a lot of imagining if you haven't been in that position but please try.

When faced with treatment like that I think another source for that anger comes apparent.

You learn that as a guy when it comes to being harmed by females (physically or otherwise) it doesn't mean anything.

When you are constantly exposed to this its no surprise that some rage is going to build and look for an outlet.

Now I'm sure someone would try to come in and say, "Its not women its the system."

While that is true the problem with that does nothing to hold girls/women accountable for what they have done.

Let me ask. When's the last time, when talking about men raping women, have you seen all the responsibility placed for it on the systems that support it? There's plenty of mention of how men themselves need to be held accountable for their actions (or even inactions).

It just seems to me when its the other way around you don't see as much calling for holding women responsible for the way they treat men.

And I think that's what's happening.

When that boy is hurt there is no holding the girl responsible.

When that man is raped/abused by a woman there is little to no holding her responsible.

When they reach out for support they are denied, if not attacked.

When they reach out for support they are sometimes lucky if the tables aren't turned on them and support rallies around the violent woman instead.

They take those responses and and hard lessons and decide they will have to correct things on their own terms. And without proper support and healing "correction" takes on a horrible, possibly dangerous definition.

Learning that their own mistreatment wasn't taken seriously they learn shouldn't it be taken seriously when they do it to others. Or maybe they even decide that acting out in such ways IS the healing process.

Now let me say that I am not trying to say that this not a well fleshed out though process meant to be the explanation for all male against female hate. But I do think it happens more often that people give credit for. Yes the, "He was raised to believe women are his property." types are out there but I think there are more "With no support and understanding, he grew bitter at women." types than we believe.




If you're a guy reading this does this resonate with you? Have you had some of the "Imagine...." experiences I've described in this post or other experiences that I didn't mention? Have you had similar frustrations that may or may not have festered into anger towards women (even specific women and not just women in general)? Feel free to share.

I think there is a lot of anger among men and I think currents attempts are resolving it are more like attempts are dismissing it or co-opting it for nefarious purposes.


What do you think?






* - And this is bigger than just "her violence isn't being taken seriously" which is a very common lip servicing side step to dodge the fact that there are actually two things going. Not only is that girl's violence not being taken seriously but that boys feelings, pain, and body are not being taken seriously. But unfortunately saying it that takes the spot light off of girls/women and when it comes to examining gender it must always be examined through the lens of "how does this affect females" right?

** - Unless someone wants to take on the task of explaining how "she's just a girl its not like she can really hurt you" (which is sexist by the way I'm not saying its not) leads into "whatever she hit you for, you must have done something to deserve it".

*** - I'm talking the difference between why you don't see too many people ask a woman why did she have to be so aggressive in defending herself but if a guy is so much as pushes back the first question is, "Why didn't you just leave." Apparently being more likely to be larger and stronger then your attacker actually means that you cannot be overcome with fear and cut loose. I guess the mentality of "It's not the size of the dog in the fight, its the size of the fight in the dog" is temporarily suspended when it comes to female against male violence.

**** - Yes you could say that male against female violence happens on tv more often than female against male violence. But bear in mind that a lot of that male against female violence is used as a way to demonstrate that said male committing the violence is a bad man. On the other hand women committing violence against men on tv is often used as away to demonstrate that said female is a strong and empowered woman (or at least right).