Pages

Friday, July 23, 2010

An overlooked demographic

A friend of mine recently read two of the five books I recommended the other day.  Because my friend has good taste he absolutely loved both of them.  Unfortunately, being a man, he has struggled with the fact that he is so thoroughly enjoying books that are clearly aimed at a rather different demographic.  Or in his words "My roommate is right.  I am a woman."

*sigh*

I suppose this post brings the last two together.  You see, that attitude, right there, is all that is wrong with our society.  Ok, so that was a bit of over-exaggeration.  But it is certainly symptomatic of a lot.  What is this idea of '"manliness" which declares it "un-manly" to appreciate a book about a really choice woman?  Call me crazy, but that seems, rather, to be an indication of truly being a Man...rather than just another guy.

The Guy.  He is the propagator of this warped view of "manliness".  I don't really want to go into my definition of the Guy.  It isn't really important to the ultimate point of this post and I can't seem to explain myself without sounding like a judgmental jerk.  Unfortunately, I feel like I can't move on without giving some small explanation.  In as neutral terms as I can manage, a guy is simply the one who believes that the books he reads and the clothes that he wears are what define his masculinity.  He believes the propaganda of today's society, which declares manliness to be measured in aliens killed on Halo, the relative density of one's muscles (are they rock hard?  and if so, what kind of rock?  Granite?  Marble?  Sandstone?), and the amount of gunshots in his movies.  If the percentages of these things are not correct, he must needs be less of a man (I hope it is understood that I am speaking in vast generalizations and stereotypes and that there are infinite possibilities of variation here).  And most importantly, the Guy promulgates these stereotypes by imposing them on all of his friends. If they fail to live up to these preconceived notions of man-hood then he plasters them with what seems to him to be the worst labels one could have--"gay" or "womanly"
But what of a Man?  For, you see, there are measurements of masculinity that have nothing to do with such superfluous things as video games and fashion.  These things revolve around behavior and understanding.  I'm referring here to concepts of responsibility and loyalty.  Hard work, dedication, honor, and strength.  A Man is a different being entirely from a Guy.  He understands that what defines him is what he believes, how he acts, and what he chooses.  He is not defined by the unimportant and easily changed elements of the very surface of his character.  These come in and out of fashion on the whims of some unknown non-entity and they are not worth the effort it requires to keep up with them.  No, a Man knows that his masculinity rests inside him, where no labels apply but those he creates himself.  


So, what does this all have to do with my friend and his "embarrassing" proclivity for College Girl literature?  I would argue that it has everything to do with it.  You see, our society is busy convincing us that Guy-liness is really Manliness and Girlyness is Womanliness.  Not only is society portraying Guys masquerading as Men, but it is full of Girls strutting about as though they knew what it is to be a Woman.  Not only that, but we are being told over and over that Guys and Girls are all you need.  It is the best you can do.  I argued in my previous post that every girl ought to read those five books before she turns 20 as a means to understanding what it truly is to be a Woman.  It is a goal all girls should be striving for.  But I feel just as strongly that any guy who wants truly to be a Man ought to read them as well around the time he is looking for a wife.  You see, my friend is not womanly for loving the delightful innocence of Daddy Long Legs or for wishing he could marry a real life Elnora.  On the contrary, he is far more Manly than any Guy, dismissing such things in biased ignorance .  It is the recognition that just as there is more to being a Man than the surface appearance, there is also more to being a Woman.  A man who reads and appreciates these books is learning how to discern the difference between the Sparkly and the Candle Flame.  He is learning that there is so much more out there for him than a pretty face to be checked off on the list of "manly achievements".  And most importantly, he is learning that he wants all these extras.  That a Woman like Elnora (or Anne, or Jo, or Judy) is a woman far more worth having than any Sparkly Girl.  


And this is why I sigh when I hear my friend repeating the societal propaganda that is being so constantly thrust at him.  This is why I argue passionately that he is not outside of the demographic of these books.  This is why I wish that all guys could read these books, and have the wisdom to discern the value they contain.  Then, perhaps, as a girl who is striving to one day become a Woman, when that day arrives I will find a Man there waiting for me, instead of a bunch of guys.

5 comments:

  1. You're writing always sweeps me off my feet. I am head over heels in love with the way you use words and the thoughts you express with them. Thank you for your inspiration.

    ReplyDelete
  2. There's a lot to unpack in here, but for now I'll just say I agree with your main point. In fact bucking traditional gender roles is one of my things. I don't fit that macho definition of guy in many ways, and I've always felt that rather than me needing to change, the definition needed to change to accommodate me. Call me arrogant that way.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Laura, thank you! What a lovely compliment.

    Joe, there's been talk of "more than two genders" and you say here that you feel like the definition needs to change to fit you. I'm interested to know what YOU think should be included in that definition...and what should be left out?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I've read some of that "more than two genders" talk. I haven't found it totally convincing, but I'm open to being convinced, if only because it seems to be the only point of view with any currency that accepts that a significant number of men and women don't fit the mold.

    I'm more likely to be onboard with an outlook that doesn't reduce gender/sex to "Guys like ___. It's part of our biology. ___ is part of the male psyche."

    Here's one discussion I read recently of more than two genders: http://crossedgenres.com/simf/2010/06/14/three-isnt-always-a-crowd-the-third-gender/

    I commented there as well. When it comes to more than two genders, I just don't see the utility in it, besides what I already noted above. If we're going to say, this is a man and this is a woman and this is thing x and this is thing y, well then aren't we still basically saying that you're not a real man or a real woman if you don't conform to this or that notion of your gender?

    To bring this around to an answer to your question . . . well first of all, it's not necessarily "masculinity" I think needs a better definition, but gender. What's a real man and what's a real woman. If I had my druthers, we'd define these as loosely and as broadly as possible. Why is it so necessary to define things so rigidly and precisely that we need to invent additional terms for the people who invariably fall through the cracks. I'd be happy to define the sexes based solely on anatomy or on genetics, and leave behavior, attraction, and stereotypes out of it.

    If it's true that men feel pressured to act a certain way in order to seem manly enough, wouldn't we be better off as a society if we cut all that baggage loose? (And likewise for women?)

    ReplyDelete
  5. I agree most with your criticisms of the "multiple genders" I think. To require more than man/woman is to imply that being an unorthodox version of either is to make you none...er...something. The point is, and what I rather hoped this post implied, is that traditional stereotypes are inadequate to define what is a man or a woman.

    Where I disagree with you is that there should be no distinction or definition placed upon male or female aside from ones purely biological or genetic. I think there are *certain* things--beyond those biological/genetic things--which do define genders and separate them, hence their existence in the first place.

    ReplyDelete