Alastair's post in response to the Atlantic article declaring the End of Men was both lucid and prescient. He is particularly right in condemning the article for its expansive use of anecdote and speculation, particularly when it comes to claims that men are simply not suited for the modern economy. On the issue of the competitiveness of men and the destructiveness of the modern classroom environment, which has become highly feminized, Alastair's analysis could not be more on-point. Because I find myself in almost universal agreement with his conclusions, over and against those of the article in question, I will confine the rest of my comments to the slight areas of disagreement and, more importantly, I shall attempt to add a further dimension to the discussion of "masculinity," since as a gay male, I have a perspective that may be useful to consider in the context of this broader discussion of the roles of men and women in society.
If we have now seen the end of men as they once were, we must decide what the new beginnings will be if we are to avoid being subsumed by the feminization of society and the accompanying isolation of men from its leadership and economic benefits.
The entertainment media are wont to portray men either as egomaniacal chauvinists (military officers are a perfect example) or as lazy slobs, un-attentive to the needs of women, completely out of touch, and most often as alcoholics, marijuana users, etc. Certainly this is not universally the case, but it is more common than not. The exceptions are the with-it, sensitive gay men who understand women, are "in touch with their feminine side" and who are sophisticated, refined, well-dressed, and hold down a stable professional job (Will, of Will & Grace is the archetype). I contend that these various characterizations have distorted, if not decimated a reasonable cultural sense of what masculinity is and what it isn't. The rise of the "metrosexual" during the last decade (excellently caricatured by South Park in Episode #104 "South Park Is Gay!") further complicates and confuses what is expected by society when it comes to masculinity.
Much of this confusion is derived from the feminist movement, the gay rights movement, and the political correctness gestapo. But I would contend there is another culprit, one that is even more politically incorrect to identify, and that is the drive toward egalitarianism in the United States and Europe. For hundreds of years, aristocratic society had a clear understanding of masculinity. The idea of what comprised the ideal man may have varied from Spain to France to England to America (which was always a bit more egalitarian anyway), but at the root, the masculine man was basically the same: well-dressed, well-educated, competitive (but not aggressive), cultured, religious, and possessing a strong sense of honor.
The last hundred years has all but obliterated the respect of aristocratic culture, and with it, the historically Western sense of masculinity. Egalitarianism, no doubt, has been among the weapons of the feminist movement, a movement I am sympathetic to, and applaud for many of its successes. But it is guilty of causing serious collateral damage that must now be repaired if society is to be saved from a further regression to primeval man and his antics. For an unemployed, disenfranchised male population with no purpose in life is not just a drain on society, it poses a clear and present danger to public safety and political stability. The causes may be different, but the disenfranchised Arab male should be our cautionary tale. Bored, and with no purpose, the Arab male has created an ersatz vocation that (combined with incendiary interventionism in their home region by the United States and its allies) has brewed into a toxic and explosive mix that is economically destructive and threatens lives both there and abroad).
The trouble of course is that we are now nearly too late to fix this problem by traditional means of cultural transfusion. The World War II generation, perhaps the last of the old guard aristocracy, is dying off and is in no position to set an example for today's youngsters. The men of today's governing generation are split between the cultural and ethical nihilism of the 1960s and the ignorant chauvinists that tend to comprise the traditionalist camp, who do not have the refined sense of existence that the older aristocracy possessed. The advocates of virile masculinity in the United States are primarily those who might align themselves with such movements as "Promise Keepers" and other organizations of the right-wing evangelical community. Numerous books have been published on the subject by these people who argue for "traditional gender roles" without even understanding what those roles have traditionally been, but have rather contrived a sense of "masculinity" that is offensive in almost all regards, demanding a reversal of the genuine progress of women and homosexuals in gaining legitimate status in society.
This view generally advocates a "traditional family" with a strong male leader, a domestic housewife, etc. They have come up with such preposterous ideas as the "ex gay" movement and "sexual orientation therapy" because they view gays (especially gay men) as a threat to masculinity. The scapegoating of gay men when it comes to the feminization of culture is rampant in conservative America, nowhere more evident than in the debate over the repeal of the ban on open homosexuals from active service in the US military.
I contend that gay men have actually been among the chief victims of the feminization of culture, rather than its beneficiaries. Contemporary "gay culture" is, like the beer-drinking-football-watching-lazy-sloven-straight male culture, an escape from masculinity. Because the feminist movement, and women in general, have been the leading advocates of gay rights in society, it has been easier for gay men to associate with women and their political causes, than might otherwise naturally be the case, in the absence of rejection and derision by their straight counterparts. The overt discrimination against openly gay men in collegiate and professional athletics has either kept them in the closet, or pushed them into other endeavors (such as the arts) where they are more accepted by their peers.
And yet, gay men idealize and adore straight masculinity, with gay men frequently wishing that attractive straight celebrities "played for our team." Indeed, one of the most puzzling things for me as a gay man is to examine the overt disconnect between idealized masculinity and the "culture" of most gays. I am painting with broad strokes here, but I do not think it is off the mark to say that most gay men find the muscular, athletic male physique, the "greek god" look, to be the idealized male physical form. As easy as it may be to scapegoat gay rights and the acceptance of gays into mainstream culture for the feminization of society and the death of masculinity, I would contend that nothing could be more off-base.
How, then, can men, gay and straight, be called away from their escapes from masculinity to redefine what maleness means and how it is to be practiced in the contemporary cultural milieu?
This will be the subject of my next post, but in the meantime, I look forward to any thoughts, comments, or questions on this topic.
No comments:
Post a Comment