Why Are American Men Sexually Insecure?
Jon Hamm, Ideal American Male
Melvil Poupaud, Ideal French Male
Jon Hamm, Ideal American Male
Melvil Poupaud, Ideal French Male
“A real man doesn’t do any of the following things: eat quiche, floss, play frisbee, or use zip codes.”
Bruce Feirstein, Real Men Don’t Eat Quiche
Bruce Feirstein wrote the satire Real Men Don’t Eat Quiche in 1982. It was a New York Times bestseller for over a year. Though it was intended purely as humor, it became a serious how-to guide for many young American men. In 1982, the traditional male role had been under attack in America by both feminists and the media for over a decade. For the first time, men were forced to examine their changing role in society. The reverberations would ultimately be felt in many Western countries, but nowhere was the crisis in male identity as pronounced as in the U.S. This confusion among men has been identified by Michael Kimmel and others as the source of delayed maturation among contemporary young men, who increasingly don’t become productive adults until at least their mid-20s.
The photos above are of two straight actors, both enjoying superstardom as sex symbols in their own countries. As you can see, there is an enormous difference in their physical appearances. Jon Hamm is rugged and muscular. Melvil Poupaud is slim, with more rounded, feminine features. It’s probably fair to say that Jon Hamm has a much higher testosterone level. They are also presenting themselves very differently. Jon is confident, perhaps even smug. His body language is closed. If he were looking at a woman, he might be saying, “You are mine, I own you, and there isn’t a thing you can do about it.” In contrast, Melvil is slouching, hands tucked in pockets, leaving him open and defenseless. His head is bowed slightly, and he is looking up from that position. He seems to be saying, “Are you mine? Do you love me?” He communicates vulnerability, but he is secure in his masculinity.
I discovered Melvil Poupaud (and quickly became obsessed by him) thanks to Meg, a regular reader who recommended the film Broken English in a comment not long ago. The film stars Parker Posey opposite him in the lead. She is a woman approaching 30, single and bitter in NYC. He is a French dude visiting for a bit.
Broken English
He falls for her (not sure why) and they spend a weekend together (I won’t give away the ending). During one scene, they’re lounging together in the tub, and she asks him, “What are we doing?” He says, “We are taking a bath.” And she says, “No, I mean where is this going? What do you want?” He is quite taken aback, and he answers, “I don’t know yet. We are just getting to know each other. Why do you need to know?”
She is coming from the place that American women inhabit – a sinking sense that this will probably not end well. On the other hand, he is puzzled by her need to control the situation. For this Frenchman, the process of becoming intimate requires both physical and emotional sharing. He is open to something wonderful happening between them, even hopeful. He doesn’t understand her emotional reticence, and the cultural divide is stark.
One possible explanation for the difference between American and European men may be our educational systems. European universities do not have college campuses complete with dorms. The campus is a center for learning, not socializing. Students usually live at home if possible, or independently if away from home. As we know, American colleges are hotbeds (haha) of socializing and experimenting as students explore the newfound freedom of living away from their parents for the first time.
Much of campus life revolves around athletics and Greek organizations, with alcohol flowing freely at all times. Jocks and frat stars wield enormous influence at most colleges. Even at schools where the Greek scene is small or non-existent, fraternities set the standard for male college shenanigans and sexual expression in this country. Indeed, they serve as a haven for masculinity, which is largely defined by sexual conquest. Brothers are expected to report on their sexual exploits to the group, and those men with the greatest number of partners derive the most status. Being in a relationship, with only one sexual partner to dish about, limits one’s ability to achieve status within the peer group.
How did this desperate need to assert sexual competency develop?
Dating did not become a phenomenon on college campuses until the 1920s, about a hundred years after the founding of the first college fraternities. Greek organizations were the center of the dating scene on campus, and there was a rigid hierarchy of popularity that determined whom one might date. A man’s popularity was determined by his attractiveness, charm and “line,” i.e. game, in today’s parlance. Men who excelled came to symbolize the epitome of the all-American male.
At the same time, homosexuality became a discrete identity category, thanks to the work of Freud, growing numbers of sexologists, and the celebrity of Oscar Wilde. It became important for heterosexual men to prove their masculinity as a refutation of homosexuality. For the fraternities, this presented an awkward dilemma: the most selective fraternities were determined to recruit men who were attractive to women, and found themselves evaluating men for physical beauty as a prerequisite for admission. Afterward, the men enjoyed the camaraderie and intimacy common to fraternity life, especially during hazing rituals, many of which were sexually tinged. Indeed, there developed a system on many college campuses where certain frats were known to be a haven for men with homosexual inclinations. The straight frats were under even more pressure to prove their masculinity.
Later, the Sexual Revolution granted men much freer access to sex, and presented an irresistible source of validation. Today, frats are still the best example of aggressive masculinity, often to the detriment of the women they interact with. Athletes are also part of this trend, and at many colleges a group of teammates constitute what is essentially a frat, e.g. the lacrosse guys at Duke.
There is no obvious solution to this problem. In fact, with college enrollment rates still falling for American men, things are likely to get worse for women before they get better.
Short of transferring to the Sorbonne, the only thing American women can do is prepare themselves for the realities of life on the grounds of most American colleges. And wait impatiently for these young men to reach their mid-20s, grownups at last.
Source:
Syrett, Nicholas L., http://www.alternet.org/sex/140416/why_is_the_frat_boy_culture_so_sleazy_and_sex-crazed/?page=1
Related posts:
I think the french dude is much better looking – wait, that wasn’t the point was it? oh well.
Haha, perhaps not directly, but I feel the same way, and I think your point is relevant. There seems to be building evidence that women are turning away from the macho types and going for the sensitive guys. By the way, I was surprised when my husband really liked Broken English too. If you haven’t already seen it, you might rope Inspector Climate into it..
I'm in love with both these men but my heart beats a little faster for Poupaud.
I never have thought about the difference between American Higher ed and other countries. It is an interesting thing to look at. I'm going to have to ponder this more, but I guess living at home with mom does limit your ability to score. However, knowing some foreign men I wouldn't say that that hinders much. Also mid 20s? I'm waiting to see a mature 26-29 year old in this city.
This is where I chime in and say 'yer all crackers, right?
Well here goes. Your source Nicholas L. Syrett via Alternet gives a fairly good accounting for himself, (hey, it's the Net not a grad history seminar), but alas & alack he missed a bit. Quite a bit, actually.
“Dating did not become a phenomenon on college campuses until the 1920s…” Yes, dating exploded in the 1920's, principally due to the expanding transportation options (cars & decent local roads), and the sudden ease of access as the once rigid Victorian era mores gave way to a more modern & 'looser' interpretation of courtship & 'meeting' & sex after WW1.
All this Not having much to do with Frats actually. Frats have been and always will be an important, but essentially Minority community on almost any campus you might name. (There are rare exceptions). And as I like to frequently remind people, some of the oldest songs we know in the English language are old College drinking songs about the pleasurable wonders of yes, drinking to excess & essentially 'whoring' around. From say the Middle ages onwards.
So chasing the easy life of 'wine, women & song', while relatively young? A great and grand tradition long before the invention of the formal college fraternity. And if you were essentially a 'gentleman of leisure' & rich enough to follow such pursuits to your heart's content? Well then you were considered the rare & lucky fellow indeed, again linking up to another grand tradition that's only several 1000's of years old, dating again to the Classical Greeks & Romans. They left behind plenty of literature & love poetry to attest to this fact too.
So going back to the records of the oldest extant colleges (800-700 + years), you see a constant interplay & centuries of interactions between the local 'townies' who surrounded the grounds of the campus (think Oxbridge here or even some of the early Spanish centers of higher learning) and the 'sheltered but very privileged' learned denizens & 'inmates' of such environs. There were no women at the colleges of course. So no sororities to play with or 'twin' with your fav frat. Just the local 'bawdy houses' and taverns, which of course are an even older tradition than any frat. So the townies were always on a sharp look out for the boys/monks/friars/dons from the college who deep in their cups & drinking to excess during the eve or during the many 'breaks' from study might be relieved of a bit of their extra change in rigged 'games of chance' or a chance at some 'slap & tickle' games with the comely bar matron or yes, proverbial 'serving wench' upstairs. (Remember them?!)
And yes dear hearts, as colleges were all but essentially male 'fraternities' (writ large) for well over 500 years, homosexuality there certainly predates any formal introduction of Frats or frat life. As does several generations (centuries actually) of unique styles of homosexual culture, (again think Oxbridge & yes, the Roman Catholic Church here). So again, nothing new under the sun. And yet another reason to always get & use a few more sources when trying to figure out all this sexual history stuff. History is always more complicated & surprising than we imagine. Yes, really! Cheers & Good Luck! 'VJ'
Much as I love my country, I am very aware of the hyper-consumerist mindset that pervades nearly every aspect of our lives. Consumerist mindset explains the high divorce rate, low academic performance, you name it.
It is nothing more than a desire to be served. Not happy with your hamburger? Send it back. Unhappy with the service at the department store? Demand something for free.
Spouse not giving you the thrill anymore? Divorce.
After all, the universe is surely designed to give you your heart's desire, provided you demand it tenaciously enough.
What is completely missing from many people is the desire *to serve*. Some of my greatest pleasures in life have been causing success and joy in the lives of others.
In some ways, I no longer pursue pleasures for myself. Even women and relationships are kind of off my radar. Part of this stems from my “lower-beta” status. As I start into my mid-forties, the still-desirable women in my age group seem to have tightened their standards even more, refusing to compromise on a future husband's wealth, status, or general 'hotness'.
Many ARE willing to settle, however, but there are always crazy exes, multiple children, loss of any remaining physical attractiveness, etc. In short, nothing to make a guy want to make the jump.
So to answer your question, I think that the meta-level mindset (of which consumerism is a subset) explains much of the problem.
For financially independent, socially conscious Americans, I think that significant others have become a sort of fashion accessory. They are shopping from a set of expectations based on more superficial characteristics.
Susan-
Why do you use two very attractive men, who differ in these minute ways to try to illustrate a supposed difference? What about the millions of average guys who can never in a lifetime give an average girl the thrill factor that these guys could?
Now, if your point is that the only men who count are these kind of guys, and that average looking guys with average jobs and average looks can just curl up and die, then fair enough, and I will not criticize.
If your intent is to talk about men in general, I think that pointing out the supposed difference in American men by the fictitious actions of celebrities may be a bit of a stretch.
So why should this matter – why should any woman reading this blog listen to me, an obvious 'loser'?
Well, not for my sake, but for the sake of your own sons. God forbid, what if you have a son with less than average looks, or who has no 'game'? It is easy to convince yourself that your son will be fighting the girls off, but this is clearly not the case for many men today.
What if you have to watch your son receive the kind of treatment from American women that you are giving to American men? What if your son can't find a date because he lacks 'hotness'? What if everyone was as picky as you?
I am supremely confident that the majority of your female readers under 35 don't even really understand what it means to love a significant other.
They understand lust and attraction very well, but have completely misconstrued those sensations as love.
Even the first comment on this post proves my point. She's 'in love' with both these guys. Ya.
I think she's in lust with them.
This is the kind of female heart I'm supposed to desire?
Haha, Meg, I think European men find ways around mom when they want to have sex. But I do think the opportunities for casual sex are more limited for that reason. In addition, families try to protect the moral virtue of their unmarried daughters, especially in Italy. Italian bars are filled with Italian guys and American (mostly) women. Italian women remain under Mama's watchful eye.
So men in their late 20s are still acting like kids? If they wait much longer, we'll be infertile! This is a serious problem, joking aside. The average marriage age keeps climbing, but women's biological clocks stay exactly the same.
Actually, VJ, the alternet article confirmed what I'd learned in previous research. Kathleen Bogle's “Hooking Up: Sex, Dating and Relationships on Campus” (see Sources) provides an excellent history of courtship and dating.
In earlier Western societies the process for most young middle and upper class people to find potential mates was heavily monitored by parents, their families, and their communities. This was known as the calling era. The calling era did not work for the lower and working classes. They began going somewhere together, which became known as a “date”.
Dating was not the same as courtship: “Courtship involves people of the opposite sex getting to know each other en route to marriage. Dating is not true courtship because the intent is not to marry. These relationships were prevalent in college b/c students, especially men, wanted to delay marriage until they graduated and were settled into careers.”
Fraternities did not originate dating, but they were the natural repository of much of the dating activity on campus. As I mentioned in the article, successful dating depended on one's “rank.” Willard Waller called this the rating and dating complex. “Both men and women did not want to date someone who did not “rank”. Students went to great lengths to rank high on the dating scale.”
Obviously, men and women have found ways to fool around since the beginning of time. It's the specific rituals of dating I'm addressing here. College students rallied around dating, creating many of its rituals and traditions. Dating was based on rank, which was based on status, which was based on membership in exclusive Greek organizations, which was based on same sex members of those organizations checking you out and determining your hotness.
Today Greeks are indeed a minority on many campuses. However, they have enormous influence on the culture of a college. When one tours campuses with high school seniors in tow, one of the most common questions kids ask is, “Can I have a social life here if I don't go Greek?” At many of the smaller colleges, frats have been long defunct, but similar sorts of social and eating clubs have taken their place. The general behavior of these all-male organizations is similar across the spectrum, whether you're at Texas A&M, Duke, Middlebury or UCLA.
Films and TV shows have also romanticized Greek culture. The film Animal House probably ushered in record highs in applications to Dartmouth. The stereotype of a Preppy with a popped collar is a frequent stand-in for the “All-American” male.
The point of the post is that American men are far more sensitive about appearing effeminate in any way. For all our progress re gay rights, elementary school boys regularly call each other gay when bullying or angry. Guys wish to avoid being perceived as “metrosexual” in any way. American men are also threatened by the “hipster” or “emo” look – see “Look at This Fucking Hipster”:
http://www.latfh.com/
Homosexuality, sometimes referred to as “the English vice” has always thrived in institutions where women are absent (see British boarding schools, prisons, etc.). The upper classes in Britain were content to largely look the other way. In Puritanical America, sodomy has been a far more controversial topic, as you know. Naturally, this has led to men feeling more compelled to disavow it.
Rick, we will always have the beautiful among us. They are rare birds, and have nothing to do with most of us. I chose these two photos for a couple of reasons. Jon Hamm is in Mad Men, one of my favorite TV shows. As I stated above, Melvil Poupaud starred in a film I watched recently. I was struck when I watched Broken English by the Frenchman's decidedly different manner. Yes it was fiction, but half an hour of checking him out online confirmed this as his natural demeanor. The photo above is not from a film role.
I also traveled recently to Europe, and again, I was struck by the very different style embraced by young men in Florence and Paris, compared with the U.S. In the general public, one obviously sees a mix of attractive and less attractive people. I found that the conventions around dress and grooming were consistent across the population, as they are here. European men are far more feminine, or “metrosexual” in their presentation.
I felt that these two photos were fairly representative of the point I was trying to make. I actually started out by looking for images of “French hipster” and “All-American guy”, but even Google images returned few results on these terms. Going with the readily available actor shots was convenient and effective.
I think you know me well enough to know that I would never believe that men like this are the only kinds that count, and it hurts my feelings that you would even say that I would suggest any guy should curl up and die. In contrast, I wouldn't want my own daughter dating either one of these guys – down this path lies misery, I am sure.
I talk about the behavior of American men as it is derived from popular culture, which includes film, literature, and college life.
I cannot stand you calling yourself an obvious loser. Stop it. Even if you are being sarcastic and facetious, it hits too close too home based on the things you've shared before.
My son is 100% beta. He is also shy by nature. He has worked hard to develop social skills, and he is a great guy. He will make someone very happy, and he knows that about himself. My husband happily acknowledges his beta nature. He is reserved, brainy, loves music and art, a gentle soul. He would never lead a posse of men for any reason. I suppose part of why I have a soft spot for what you call beta losers is that I love a couple.
If my female readers don't know what it is to love a partner, it is because they have been unable to find someone to love them in return. I cannot tell you how many women say to me, “I am 20 (or 22, 24, 28) and I've never had a serious boyfriend. What's wrong with me? Why am I undateable?” They are not women having random sex with Alpha males and ignoring any nice guy they meet.
When it's comes to relationships, it's a jungle out there.
Finally, Meg's initial comment is totally appropriate. I've met Meg, I know her, and you have pegged her 100% incorrectly. She is a relationship-minded woman, looking for something real. She is not dreaming of dating Melvil Poupaud, but hell, why shouldn't she think he's attractive? We all have our fantasies!
Yes, this is the kind of female heart you are supposed to desire. And you will never win one unless you find a way to get that huge chip off your shoulder.
P.S. megslife, who made the comment you object to, is the same meg that recommended the film to me, and I linked to her in the post. Click that link, go to her blog and check it out. I think you will realize your error right away.
Well other than be depressed by what Rick had to say (& for him), I'm not quite going to argue the finer points of social history here. But I'll do my best in quick time.
Suffice it to say that I think Susan has finally hit upon some of the essential & basic bifurcation in experience here. Fraternities were & still are to a great degree bastions of upper class privilege & middle class aspirations. But for much of the past 60years since the advent of the democratization of the college experience with the GI Bill and other social & political inventions (widespread student loans & grants following on from the older advent of the state Land Grant College system), they've been a distinctly minority experience for most college students. Most of our college age students just are not too involved in the Frat/Sorority system, their system of 'grading' or their other strange cultural traditions. (And yes, many of those ancient 'queer' rituals & traditions can and do look awfully, well, queer & for good reasons!)
So yes many Frats can and do 'set the pace' for some aspects of the social swirl on campus, but this has been declining almost everywhere (even on very active campuses) for some time. Yes, there's periodic 'revivals' of the form, but for most of the kids on campus? It's a foreign land that they're never invited to, and they'd be well advised to steer clear of, mostly. Too much drinking & drugging & careless & non consensual & 'mob' sex. Which again has been the case & tradition, well for many years. Most kids can't keep up, and it's all they can do to afford to keep at school. Most cannot afford to be partying 24/7, or even close to it. The party life is reserved for the rich 'preppy set' those with rich daddies & trust funds or the aspirational striving middling classes who imagine that there's viable 'networking' opportunities among these outré drunken & drugging louts. And this has almost always been the case with a few notable exceptions.
So again where does that leave the 75%+ of all students, (especially guys, a fairly conservative historical estimate), who don't really know or are not at all involved in the Frat culture and are almost wholly unknown to it? Well mostly? They have taken their dating & sex cues & clues from elsewhere. The mass media & created consumer culture for one. The burgeoning self help 'movement' that yes, got its start in the late 1920's as well [think of 'How to Win Friends and Influence People' here]. Frats were and still remain unique 'special cases' and are always approached with some trepidation for both males & females, and for good reasons. If for nothing more than the miserably 'spoiled rotten' entitled behavior they've traditionally promoted, encouraged & enabled. Most of the 'serious' students or 'working class stiffs' would usually not be caught dead in them, other than 'legacies' pushed upon them by dear mum/dad or departed relations who greased the skids for their sometimes dubious entry into the college.
The noted somewhat strange 'hyper masculine' identity that modern US culture seems to convey to the young, is something that's a bit more complex in origin, and seems to be twinned with our consumer culture and it's saturation of peculiar iconic males images there. It's a matter of some substantial study & debate, but can be posited as gradually dating from the post Civil War generations. Especially when large segments of the still smoldering South was denuded of male 'authority figures' and images & myths had to fulfill the roles ordinarily occupied by flesh & blood fathers & kinsmen. Now gone & mythologized in strangely aggrandizing fashions using new media to soothe the pain and painful associations with a presumable 'glorified past'. And yes, it ties in nicely and articulates with our unique 'culture of ready violence' too. But it's a fairly complex story that really does not involve the 'dining clubs' of Princeton say or Frats then & now much.
Again, I'm afraid that here the media & our new burgeoning consumerist culture has always been our guide, literally swamping all other influences since WW11 especially. And always more powerful in it's mass effect than anything idiotic boy/men are doing on any particular campus at any moment. Grading systems are now almost wholly a product of this newly created media 'complex'. And almost every BMOC know this instinctively. Buffy was once happy with rich but dim Chad who'd always work for dad's 'lucrative safe but boring' insurance agency. Now? All bets are off. Brock & Chase were once content with frigid & rigid, but 'cute & presentable' Daisy & Bernice, the ones with the ever reliable trust fund, bitching 'Boston clench' & wealthy family. They were meant for each other! They drank high balls every Sat night, just like mumsy & dadsie! No more. It's a whole new world out there. Frats are following, not (or no longer) leading the parade here. If they ever did. Just some more thoughts here. Cheers & Good Luck, 'VJ'
The “loser” and “curl up and die” comment were directed at a hypothetical reader of my comments, not at you Susan. And I know you well enough to know that you would not think either of those things.
The whole second part of my comment was directed at the type of woman who reads thoughts like mine and responds with charges of bitterness, or suggestions that I might be a loser. The internet is rife with these type of people, and some may be reading here. I certainly don't intend to hurt your feelings, or charge you with thinking those thoughts.
Wrt to Meg:
She's “in love” with them both, according to her statement. While appearing harmless, such careless use of the word love is one of the big problems we have in the dating marketplace. I disdain her comment with the same fervor as I would a male commenter who looks at some girl's chest and says he's in “love” with her. I'm an equal-opportunity disdainer.
Wrt your son – I'm sure you're right, and I hope things work out. The world changes fast, and the sick dating culture we have now may give way a bit and make life easier for betas.
In my age group, I had to face some of the worst of it. I hope his experience is better.
Again, my comments were addressed to the typical cynical woman who assumes that any guy who complains is a loser. My point was that many of them will raise sons who will go through the emotional meat-grinder of rejection by haughty American women.
I wonder whose side they will be on then? Will they call their own sons bitter losers? Or will they finally begin to see? Lots of them are going to see their sons treated the way they treated men when they were younger.
I'm going to ignore the chip on the shoulder comment, since it is ad hominem, and not typical or your discussion. Yes, I am quite certain that the fair Meg is beyond my reach, although I am confident that this would be the case no matter what my attitude. I'm through playing nice on the off chance some woman will want me. My nice guy days are over – it got me nowhere, other than LJBF.
The problem with dorms is that they encourage an extension of teenage years. In other countries, it is very usual that people work or have a multi-year internship at the same time they are studying. They are able to deal with people of different ages and stages in life. They learn to behave. Most live with parents, but the ones who need to move to go to college usually live by themselves or with a roommate outside the campus.
The campi are also usually in an urban environment. See Sorbonne. It is a bunch of disconnected buildings among businesses, shops, etc. American campi are simply the most beautiful in the world, but they are cities in themselves.
European guys are far from the stereotype of the French romantic. There is a lot of competition too, and they can be very boring because they talk, talk, talk. It is all about wines, history and politics. French guys always want to be right and show they know more than you. After the novelty, an American girl would have a hard time keeping a French guy.
Italians are mama's boys and no American women will accept the role he has for her . Germans are super educated and can talk about anything, but are too serious and introspective. Surprisingly, Portuguese guys may be the closest to the stereotype, since they are warm, cultivated and nice.
Anyways, any American girl would have to reinvent herself in order to get a guy for a long term commitment in Europe. She'd have to leave the “I can do anything, I have to always win” brainwashing behind and learn to impress not only with sex, but with talk. 90% are too brainwashed to change.
Obs 1) I think Jon is ten times more handsome. He is a kind of guy who you will not find anywhere else but in the States, like Tom Brady or that marine Pat Tillman, (http://images.usatoday.com/news/_photos/2006/10...) killed because he was anti-war. Melvil looks like the cab driver who has a stop in front of my condo (I say this from the pic, never having seen his charm, or whatever).
Obs2) I never understood how a gay sport like lacrosse can be masculine.
VERY interesting stuff here VJ! I know you read alot, and you've usually got links, so if you know of any research around the hypermasculine American male identity, I would be very interested to see it. Obviously, there are enormous implications here not just for men's appearance, but also for behavior and attitude.
Yes, I agree that the media plays a huge role. And it's interesting that both you and rick immediately identified consumerism as a determining factor. I do agree that the old Brahmin lockjaw culture is nearly extinct. The Muffy's and Bunny's of the world seem offensive today, not just irrelevant.
It's also interesting that you touched upon the Civil War. WWII also had an effect, as the shortage of young men meant fewer dates. Going steady became the goal. After the war, an economic boom resulted in a rapid drop in the average age at marriage.
This is a complex question, to be sure. Interesting though, relevant and a bit troubling.
Hey, VJ! Your comment remind of a highly quotable old saying I recently heard in class about the great and grant tradition of chasing the easy life some centuries ago:
“If a noble man doesn't have syphilis, then he is either not much of a noble or not much of a man”.
What I really liked about it was how it showed very plainly the inherent stupidity of more women=more status.
Sorry, Rick, I overreacted there. The hard thing about having passionate discussions online is that there is no emotional context, and misunderstanding is all too easy, as happened here with me. It's also why texting is bad for relationships!
I certainly can't blame you for feeling frustrated; I only think that telegraphing that anger towards women may interfere with your interactions with them. You don't want to be Mr. Nice Guy, that's understandable and probably good strategy. This is where elements of Game can be helpful and productive. I think you can find a middle ground.
Hey, when you are chill, like when you wrote that funny bit about pants, you are charming. Wit is a huge talent, so use it if you've got it!
That's a good point about dorms, smartduck. Colleges used to stand in for parents, supervising the morals of students. That's no longer true, and students will always find new shenanigans if no one is watching. The level of alcohol consumption on campuses is another example of this.
The rest of your assertions are more questionable. Stereotypes always contain an element of truth, but I don't buy characterizing men by country in exactly this way. My observation about European men was based on visual observation. I'm certainly not ready to accept generalizations about their character by country. As a South American male, I can see that you have machismo!
Funny you should mention Tom Brady and Pat Tillman. I thought of both of them right off the bat. It just felt too sad to talk about Pat Tillman, though. Jon Hamm gives off the same vibe.
Lacrosse is not a gay sport, duh. It was invented by virile Native Americans. The guys who play it are usually jacked. Nothing gay about it – do you object to the helmets or what?
“The problem with American men is that once they marry they start to have that nervous look, and they always walk on eggshells with the wife. I am a witness that marriage really castrates American guys.”
That is ridiculous. Why should men be nervous? American women expect a partnership, we're not looking to run the show. You may know some guy with no balls who walked on eggshells, but there's nothing wrong with a man respecting his wife. VJ is an excellent example of this.
Thanks Susan, I think! The story of how male masculinity is 'constructed' in the US, both historically and presently is indeed very complex. And strangely enough, it does go through a 'Scouting' as well as a YMCA ('muscular Christianity') phase in the early 1900's (say until the Great Depression), when then too many folks were seemingly worried over 'feminized' men, not the least of which were the religious authorities, and others. Principally among these were the Army, who were horrified to discover that 1/3 of their raw recruits for WW1 were severely underweight & too slight to be able to do much 'work'. This was a serious ongoing Medical concern & research project for the next few decades, leading to many improvements in the diets of Americans (& others) as well as the medical discoveries of the purpose & necessity of Vitamins to the daily diet too.
Some of this was due to trying to 'accommodate' & successfully 'integrate' the 'uprising' numbers of the urban & immigrant poor in the teeming cities & then rising middle class who were most likely never going to go to college, but still needed to be 'instructed' on the proper ways & mores of 'manhood', as the authorities then saw & construed it. (Girls had 'Home Economics', remember?) Also recall that TV was yet to be invented, and radio was just coming into its own as a mass medium at the time. The images of masculine identity came almost exclusively from advertisements in newspapers & magazines, setting the stage for a much more heavy involvement and more conscious effort decades later by the 'ad men/mavens'.
So what I think Rick is seeing here is real. And yes, it really does date to the Civil War & before. Since this has now turned into a mini history seminar, I can offer some of my favorites on the general topics.
“Gunfighter Nation: The Myth of the Frontier in Twentieth-Century America” (Paperback)
~ Richard Slotkin
“Regeneration Through Violence: The Mythology of the American Frontier, 1600-1860″ (Paperback) ~ Richard Slotkin
A good & recent seemingly useful intro into the whole question from an albeit limited perspective (white upper middle class) is here:
“American Manhood: Transformations In Masculinity From The Revolution To The Modern Era”. (Paperback)~ E. Anthony Rotundo
More unusual and unknown or forgotten history is here:
“Sentimental Men: Masculinity and the Politics of Affect in American Culture” (Paperback)~ Mary Chapman (Editor), Glenn Hendler (Editor)
An international perspective can be gleaned here too:
“Manhood in the Making: Cultural Concepts of Masculinity” (Paperback)
~ Professor David D. Gilmore
On the South start here & with JSR's other valuable books:
“Perspectives on the American South: An Annual Review of Society, Politics and Culture – Volume 2″ (Hardcover)~ Merle Black (Editor), John Shelton Reed
Ideology? Start here:
“War Is a Force that Gives Us Meaning” (Paperback)~ Chris Hedges
And Here on the Civil War origins:
“Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party before the Civil War With a New Introductory Essay” (Paperback) ~ Eric Foner
That's probably enough reading for the week, eh? Right! I need the reports back by next Monday by 4… Cheers & Good Luck! 'VJ'
Do add Films to the list of highly influential sources for masculine (& feminine) identity of course. I did not mean to forget them or their massive influence here! Cheers, 'VJ'
Oh, BTW, This is just for Rick, You're Not Alone!: (From the Archives):
The ego epidemic: How more and more of us women have an inflated sense of our own fabulousness
By Lucy Taylor
Last updated at 7:55 AM on 14th September 2009
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-12132...
And yes, like SD, I think most of our females would be easily recognized as being clearly more 'masculine' than many Euro specimens!
And Duck? Lacrosse started as the North American Algonquin Natives 'little brother to war', traditionally played with dozens of 'ball players' from sun up to sun down. A more vicious & even more violent form was well known in the Southern Hemisphere, where the loser chief or representative (captain) of the team who Lost 'Ball'? Got to have their head removed and then played with for awhile on carefully carved stone ball courts of Mexico & Central America. That's what the Spanish saw when they first got here! It rightly scared the bejeezus out of them. So they tried to outlaw it as early as they could. Check out the history on it : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lacrosse
Cheers, 'VJ'
“Short of transferring to the Sorbonne, the only thing American women can do is prepare themselves for the realities of life on the grounds of most American colleges. And wait impatiently for these young men to reach their mid-20s, grownups at last.”
I'll both agree and disagree with this, Susan. I agree that American woman need to prepare for the realities of life (so do American men). However, I disagree that these women need to wait “impatiently for these young men to reach their mid-20s, grownups at last.” That's the problem…those men who the women are waiting for are the bad boys, the cads, the players. Waiting impatiently for them is a waste of time, and even if they do seemingly “grow up”, most often, their attitude toward relationships is just a variant of what they did in their late teens and early-twenties. If you need to wait for the guy to grow up, you got the wrong guy.
The cleverer women in my college days put themselves in positions to befriend quality betas. Not hookups, not one night stands with friends of the quality beta, but looking for a longer term relationship. In college (and grad schools), they selectively looked, and during that collegiate time is easier to learn about the other person: you can see who his friends are, what he studies and has passions for academically, and you can usually meet some type of family (which is very important to see how they deal with them). Of the dozen or so college friends who wound up in this type of situation, all of them are happily married, some with several kids. And since they were together from before any financial or career success, they shared a lot of bonds working up to that, and have quite egalitarian marriages…
Of course, that sort of thing was rare even a dozen years ago, so I'd imagine less people think that way now. Back then, the majority of women in college were looking for bad boys and drama, or not interested in relationships or just wanted to have fun. There were a few shy ones as well.
Some of the ones not interested in relationships went out to the working world and saw the dating life was nothing like the college days. Some of the shy ones became less so. And the cleverer of these groups kept in touch with college friends such that they were aware that certain betas were still single. That was the second batch of weddings I attended, the late-twenty somethings who had reconnected like that. Note that they already knew the guy was a real grown up from their earlier college times, but it took them several years to realize it and fortunately, the guy was still available.
So, any women waiting for the bad boys and cads to grow up in their late twenties, is really behind the ball and looking in the wrong place.
And it'll get more difficult as time passes. A thirty-something beta guy can be picky in his own right. From personal experience, we too become choosier and look for qualities important in a long term mate. And we're not looking for the women who “waited impatiently” for their bad boys to grow up, or one with a history of hookups.
Yep ExNYC, That point's been made again & again here. On several posts. It really should be the essence of 'HUS'. Some of these 'wanna be Alpha asshats' will Never, EVER grow up. No, Not Really! Not now, not in 10 days or 10 months or even often in 10 years. And Deep down? Everyone knows this. But hey they look just so damn good, they Must be Good For You, right? That's the essence of the 'consumerist fallacy' and what we've been brainwashed by yes, years of paying homage to the ever attractive 'disease of images'. We love what we see. Even when what we hear does not match it well. Or what we Learn & Know clashes ever more critically with the lovely view & imagined possible 'fantastic' futures that flit before our eyes. Sometimes mesmerized for years if not decades of wasted time with the low louts of the world. Again, that takes a toll, on everyone.
So to the eternal question of adulthood, Would you rather be Right than Married? Most American women today will answer immediately Yes! Ditto for 'Right' vs 'Happy' all too often.
So again, 'Why are American Men so Sexually insecure'? College Humor tells all!:
http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1922184
Encapsulates it all pretty damn succinctly, right? Looks like a typical lightweight emo dude anyways, right? No good can come of this! Go with the cool 'dude'…
(I know, hyperbolic, but funny just the same!) Cheers & Good Luck, VJ'
Susana,
I see some cultural misunderstandings here. When I dropped “church” or “gay” I see that you got really upset. Do I sense political correctness?
Americans really write twice as much in order to say the same thing other people say much quicker. When I say the game is “gay”, it is because in most places running with a net after a little ball like you are catching butterflies is weird. Of course I am not implying that the guys who play it are gay, or that it was invented by gays. Anywhere else but in the US, people would laugh it off and just shrug their shoulders, even if they played the God damn thing.
When I said that the girl could go to church, it was also casually. I could have said go to a guru. It was not meant to be taken literally. I was not trying to proselytize anyone. Here one could say the same thing and the other friend could say “I am not going to that weird church of yours” and both would just laugh.
I guess that Americans have been so much fragmented, forced to choose sides in every aspect of life, that almost ANY issue is a question of life and death. Many times foreigners would see this from the outside and laugh, because for us the two sides were almost identical.
I apologize, because as someone who lived for some time in the US, I should know better how to write in an American blog.
But, going back to the discussion, you would be outraged by any European in 15 minutes, because most are not P.C. A German would tell you in your face that he doesn't like your clothes, for example. A French would be more subtle, but could very well spend two hours trying to convince you that his government is better than Washington.
I don't see Brazilians as super machistas. Most women here work, and feminism is much more about necessity than ideology. Women know how to separate the need for achievement from the need to remain feminine. But since we are less concerned about being P.C., we probably sound machista. Of course Brazilians outside the more developed centers are less educated than the average American, and it also may look like machismo.
My judgement about American hubbies walking on eggshells comes from befriending at least 50 American couples in the last decades. With the exception of very conservative religious couples, the wife taking the lead seems to me to be the rule. I still maintain that if I were a women, I would choose an American male to marry among any men in any country.
VJ, that is an awesome reading list! Thank you so much. I am extremely interested in this question – I think it lies at the heart of male/female interactions in the U.S. I know you said once that you are a recovering academic, but thankfully still willing to do some teaching here and there…
However, since I'm not obligated to report back haha, I daresay you will get reports back later than Monday at 4 (which has actually passed)!
Yay, ExNewYorker, I confess I was hoping you would show up in this thread!
I actually think there are many good guys who experiment with douchebag tactics as a result of peer pressure. Many guys wonder if they have what it takes to be a player, and they try out the role. Some of them can pull it off, but don't feel great about it. Others can't, and don't feel great about that. I really believe it's premature to judge a man's character until he's out of college, and making his way in the world – many guys are idiots in college, who will develop into good men.
I am SO on board with college women befriending quality Betas, as I think you know by now. This is the path to happiness!
Yes, yes, yes, I agree with every single thing you say here.
Haha, smartduck, you may be right about political correctness. I tend to think of myself as politically incorrect, but that may be because I live in just about the most liberal place in the U.S. (Berkeley, CA being the other). However, it is not OK anywhere in America to be calling things “gay” in a pejorative sense. We're past that.
You may be right about Americans choosing sides and debating almost everything. That is what happens in democracy, no? I don't think I'd be outraged by a different approach or point of view, though. I would actually be quite curious to discuss French politics with a Frenchman, for example.
I do think that American women wrestle with balancing achievement and femininity. That is part of the legacy of the Women's Movement, for better and worse. When I came out of business school in the 80s, we basically dressed like men, in severe navy blue suits, with little bow ties at our necks. Femininity had no place in an office. Then again, I had my breasts grabbed by a Senior VP when I was wearing those mannish clothes, so I suppose we all needed time to get hormonally adjusted to women in the workplace (I never saw it coming!). We've come a long way, for sure.
So American wives take the lead? I guess some do. Not all, by any means. The irony is, I don't think women want to be in control of their men. It doesn't feel very special to be married to someone you can push around, at least to me. I think women are programmed to seek strong males. They don't need to be Alpha, but they need to have a strong sense of self.
Same rights for everyone is great. Sao Paulo has the largest gay parade in the world. But I cherish my right to find the homosexual act repulsive. I will not throw this on anyone's face, though. Same thing about the freedom to call any ridiculous efeminate action “gay”. I see this as freedom and more advanced than P.C. Only mature people can deal with it without being offended. I have a gay friend , an intelectual, and I say he is getting so gay he will melt into a pink puddle. He says I will turn gay if I try. We both laugh. But then, this isnt Berkeley (I thought you were in Boston)
Just saw the movie. Julien is indeed charming. His charm is that he has no agenda, he just likes her and is sincere about it. Nora otoh has an agenda and see men as tools. Most women are this way and they wonder why men cant commit. The problem is that what was supposed to be a journey of enchantment and discovery turned out to be a war, with both sides manipulating each other.
Yeah, I'm in Boston, I just mention Berkeley as the OTHER really liberal American center. I suppose to be accurate, I'd have to say Cambridge, MA is the equivalent of Berkeley. I'm glad you and your friend can talk things out openly… :-/
I'm glad you liked Broken English. Nora is not appealing – that's why I said I wasn't sure why he liked her. I find her way too neurotic. I don't think she sees him as a tool, she's just so pessimistic about relationships that she can't enjoy him. She can't trust that he has no agenda. That is a pity, and I am afraid quite common among American women. We got the happy ending, though
I'm just commenting anonymously here, but surely in tripping around the blogsphere you've run into some information the state of the law in modern american marriages?
Thanks for commenting, Clarence. I assume you are referring to divorce laws favoring women? Divorce rate of 50%? I am interested in the possible link – are you saying that the American male fears being emasculated in the dissolution of his marriage? And that has led to a hypermasculine ideal?
I'm just commenting anonymously here, but surely in tripping around the blogsphere you've run into some information the state of the law in modern american marriages?
Thanks for commenting, Clarence. I assume you are referring to divorce laws favoring women? Divorce rate of 50%? I am interested in the possible link – are you saying that the American male fears being emasculated in the dissolution of his marriage? And that has led to a hypermasculine ideal?