Saturday, September 23, 2006

Manly Men

The recent barrage of uber-"manly" ads, books, and movies have made it clear that there is a movement afoot: one where no pansies are allowed. The effeminate or even the modestly sensitive man is no longer an acceptable model, according to the proponents of this new Mr. Macho Movement.

Consumer culture has once again become involved in this masculinity-shaping movement. Carl's Jr. has pointed out what is considered food appropriate for a man and what is "chick food" (hint: the more testosterone in the food, the more testosterone in you). Irish Spring has commanded men to "take back the shower," with their soap "for men." An Alphabet of Manliness is a bestseller that tells us what the proper form of a drop kick and the art of road rage. I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell, gives us insight into the life of a misogynist, belligerent drunk who swings and clubs more often than Tarzan. These examples can even be seen at the highest levels of government.

These are signs of a new movement within an evolving one. In Stiffed: The Betrayal of the American Man, Susan Faludi describes the ornamental conception of manhood that has evolved since the end of World War II. The old definition of masculinity focused on contribution in society for the general well-being. The post-WWII American man is no longer about substance, but about style. It is not "masculine" to do well, but to look good. Within this definition, I see a new stream of thought that is increasingly gaining momentum. Today, some think it is not only important to look good, but to look good being bad. The Neanderthal must now posses a club as well as a velvet blazer. This frat boy mentality has contempt for anything slightly weak.

Here is a pointer if you want to emulate that supposed masculinity: the more you act as if you have learned all your life lessons in a bar, the manlier you are.

I have a problem with this addition to the already flawed definition of masculinity. It puts too much importance on the appearance of things. It makes masculinity even more ornamental than it already is.

A man cannot prove himself one by supporting his community or lending his services for the common good, but instead must play a counterproductive role in the celebrity culture in this country: look goooood creating havoc. As Budweiser claimed, "man laws" must be established, in order to instruct men how to be "manly."

It appears I need to take note.

Boo the Loner

"Going to the movies by yourself is creepy," I once heard someone say. I, of course, told the movie theater cashier how wrong he was and took my ticket. The movie was a delight. Thank you very much.

This pervasive attitude in our society towards "loners" or those who participate in tasks we typically associate with more than one person is a bit confusing to me. Many Americans would rather stay at home, rather than enjoying a restaurant meal, going to a party or a ball game, or watch a movie by themselves.

Oddly enough, even these stay-at-home-and-pout people are also labeled "loners." Our culture sure has something against the citizen who buys TV dinners for one. Matchmaking services abound, reminding us our soulmate is out there, so go find them now! The lifelong bachelor is at times admired by men who wish for such relationship freedom, and swooned over by women who like the unattainable man, but more often felt pity by those who already have a partner. The bachelorette is even worse off, having to fend off pressures from many venues to get married and settle down-how it is supposed to be.

Loners in high school are shunned by the rest of the students. At the same time, people in the workplace see loners as the likeliest employee to go postal. Hardly ever do you see romantic comedies that end by leaving the single man and woman, well, single. It appears to be anathema to our culture to let people be lonely.

Of course, we human beings are social animals in the need of interactions with other beasts of our kind. Chatting or grinding it up with other people is perfectly human (and at times a bit graphic). But does this go against our homegrown idea of the American Dream? We, as a culture, are taught that the American Dream is what every citizen strives for, to pull ourselves up by the bootstraps.

The self-made man or woman is often the greatest figure of admiration. I have to figure that sometime during that triumphant voyage to the top this figure of admiration might have fit the "loner" status. I am sure these people did things by themselves, solved their own problems, motivated themselves, and probably went to a couple of restaurants by themselves to mull in their thoughts.

So then, why do they not suffer the wrath as does the guy who loves to read in the corner of Barnes and Noble? It might have to do with how they present themselves.

An air of confidence and success separates the self-made American from the loner. Nice slacks and a $100 haircut do not hurt either. If you win, you are no longer a loner, but the embodiment of the American Dream. If you do not succeed, then start dressing in black and pout.

This is unfair. There is no doubt. Your value as a person goes back to what you have or do, not what you are.

Shouldn't the loner be accepted as a part of the American Dream? Do these two ideas go well together? It is worth analyzing if this odd relationship is indicating: a) hypocrisies in our culture, b) the American Dream is actually a fabricated illusion, or c) All of the above. Of course, you can add d) none of the above, but I am afraid you would be by your lonesome on that one.