Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Oh, I Gotcha Previous entry: Haley Barbour: Palin is ‘normal,’ unlike other female politicians

Exile in Guyland

Books

I finished reading Michael Kimmel’s Guyland: The Perilous World Where Boys Become Men, which didn’t take me much time, and probably would have taken less time if it weren’t so thought-provoking that I had to put it down occasionally and think about it.  Kimmel takes the reader through the world he calls Guyland, a cultural world that dominates late adolescence and early adulthood.  Young people have to contend with it, whether they’re in it or outcast, for the same reason people everywhere have to contend with white straight male dominance everywhere.  Guyland is basically the mainstream white straight male culture—-with the toxic brew of entitlement and bitterness because there’s not more entitlement——with a dose of immaturity added in.  To critique the culture, contrary to the hysterical claims of anti-feminists, is not to man-bash or suggest men are somehow less than women.  That’s like mocking Cosmo and taking it as if you’re making fun of women for being women.  Kimmel is really good at making it very clear that his objections are to a cult of masculinity that is socially toxic, and sees young men who feel beholden to this as victims of the demands of masculinity that deprives them of the opportunity to develop into fuller human beings, and does it through threats. 

It’s nice to hear it from a man’s perspective, because while women can obviously observe the cult of masculinity, we can’t really know the pressures that men feel to play along.  But that doesn’t make it relatable.  Kimmel does a great job of spelling out how both young men and women are beholden to Guyland.  Just as young women feel the constant pressure to be sexy but not slutty, smart but not too smart, playful but with no agency, so do guys feel the non-stop pressure to prove that they’re properly masculine.  In fact, one of Kimmel’s most fascinating finds was that young women didn’t feel a need to “prove” that they were women,* but young men felt a non-stop pressure to prove that they’re men or the gender police of other guys would give them a ticket (often in the form of calling them “gay”).  This pressure just encourages the definition of masculinity to be one that trucks in immorality and cruelty, because such things get the protection extended to masculinity.  If something is defined as “masculine”, it becomes exponentially harder for men to stand up against it, for fear of being drubbed out of the boys’ club.

The biggest flaw in the book—-the one that’s going to make otherwise sympathetic readers blanch—-is that Kimmel focuses way too much energy on the Meaning of Being An Adult.  He views Guyland as an extended childhood phenomenon, and points out that young men grow out of it to a large extent.  (Sadly, one of the “responsibilities” that drag young men kicking and screaming into adulthood is the Love Of A Good Woman.  That made me want to throw up.  I pitied each and every girlfriend or wife credited with “making” her man grow up a little.  I fail to see how that’s going to result in anything but resentment and divorce when he starts to view her as the main obstacle to fun.)  Thus things like sports (which Kimmel loves), video games and porn are escapes from the pressures of adulthood, and viewed somewhat negatively for that.  And while Kimmel admits that there’s some value to the extended adolescence developed in our society—-especially when it comes to young people delaying marriage and child-bearing—-and he’s not anti-fun, the intense focus on the escapist aspects of Guyland as negative features made me uncomfortable. It’s perfectly possible for grown adults to make the conscious choice to avoid some of the markers of adulthood, like marriage or child-bearing, so that they can have more time to focus on their creative endeavors or even just playing video games if they want.  Escapism is sanity-making in a harsh world.


Kimmel’s on much firmer ground when he examines Guyland from the point of view of its entrenched misogyny and racism.  And that’s true even when he’s talking about the escapist aspects of video games and porn.  The problem isn’t that guys have the very human desire to hang it up and fantasize about being powerful or having adventures—-everyone does that.  The problem is that sexism causes guys to construct women as the enemy, and huge portions of their life are dedicated to excluding and demeaning women, either by shutting them out completely or using compliant women to play up being “babes” that can then be used to guilt-trip other women for not being as compliant.  (Sarah Palin is the grown-up political version of this.)  The porn chapter captures this dynamic perfectly.  It’s not that fantasies or masturbation are particularly problematic.  But porn doesn’t have that mundane a function in Guyland.  Porn is a salve laid over the wound of thwarted entitlement.  You start with the idea that’s still ingrained in our culture that sex happens when a man gets one over on a woman.  Add in that young men are surrounded by young women they find sexually attractive, but who don’t just hop on their cock unbidden.  Add to that a sense that you are better than women, so you are entitled to have them do what you want.  Result:  A lot of anger at young women, who aren’t being compliant enough.  Porn functions as revenge fantasies—-in fact, some of the most popular titles are pretty explicit revenge fantasies, where women are “tricked” into “admitting” that they did so want to have sex, and then humiliated in the process.  Kimmel’s observation that young men get together in groups to watch porn and mock the women, or that they use porn as screensavers points to this interpretation—-far more than masturbation material, porn is a reassuring fantasy that men do get over on those bitches. 

The sections on sports and video games were also interesting, if rife with opportunities to misread for people who are touchy about their interests in these areas.  But that can’t be helped.  There’s nothing wrong with sports or video games per se—-in fact, both provide plenty of benefits besides just fun—-but it’s an observable reality that a lot of guys try to cordon video games or sports enthusiasm as a men-only area, treating women like interlopers.  Kimmel makes a compelling case that a lot of guys desire a place where they are “free” from the burden of having to include women as equals and want to escape to a world where women are relegated to being sex objects like cheerleaders or the buxom 2D figures that populate so many video games.  The problem with excluding women is that these male-only worlds tend to breed misogyny.  In fact, in other parts of the book, Kimmel notes that one thing young men have going for them is that they have a lot of female friends, something that was more unusual in the past, and this tends to be a strong reminder that women are human beings, not objects to project aggression and hate onto. 

The sections on hazing, violence against women, and the hook-up culture are all way too intense to go into here.  I did write earlier about the hook-up culture, from a woman’s perspective, and have to say that Kimmel is very fair to young women in this.  His experience led him to believe that young women are mostly unsatisfied with hook-ups and that they want boyfriends more than guys want girlfriends—-the ominous event called The Talk (are we a couple/where is this going?) was mentioned in his interviews and always initiated by young women.  This broke my heart and made me want to start a counseling service.  (Rule One: If you start The Talk, end it.  Relationships shouldn’t be based on who blinked first.)  I was more alarmed by this than Kimmel, because I think he sees young women in the same category as thoughtful coaches, good teachers, and demanding bosses—-a pressure that can grow young men up.  I’m not so sure.  But Kimmel spelled out exactly how much having a girlfriend is discourage in Guyland, because it takes sex out of the conquest zone, and from my experience, girlfriends are considered interlopers in a way just girl friends you hook up with are not. 

Guys grow out of Guyland, kind of .  Kimmel does note with worry how much some older men have to take responsibility for coddling and encouraging the Maxim culture.  But honestly, I’m not so sure.  True believers in Guyland might get over needing to live 24/7 in a homosocial world.  It’s stressful, and often it’s easier to be yourself around a girlfriend or a wife, and so eventually you rebel enough to go there.  (Often, though, guys make their partners drag them into marriage by holding out until a woman issues an ultimatum, so that they can have the marriage but preserve the illusion that they didn’t want it.)  But I don’t think men who are committed to toxic masculinity let go of it so easily.  Every strip club is populated with middle aged guys.  And how many men keep their wives at arm’s length, avoiding emasculating conversations with an actual woman, for months at a time with sports?  Men’s rights activists, guys railing about feminazis—-the list continues.  The aggrieved anger towards women for being inconveniently human with needs and demands for equality continues throughout many men’s lives.  At a fundamental level, this book is (and openly is) about why feminism has much more work to do.

This post is long enough, so I’m putting my criticism of one part of Kimmel’s book in another post.

*Not that it’s easy to be a woman.  Your womanhood is mostly a given, but whether or not you’re a good woman is another ballgame altogether.  I think it’s because women are already considered lower than men, so you can school men by kicking them downhill, but kicking women uphill by calling them men is more fraught.

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 07:02 PM • (48) Comments

it’s an observable reality that a lot of guys try to cordon video games or sports enthusiasm as a men-only area, treating women like interlopers.

And then they wonder why we don’t like first person shooters, and assume that it’s some sort of inherent female trait.  Whereas in reality, it’s because if we don’t instantly kick ass at it they do the condescendingly patient teacher routine, sighing and rolling eyes, until we feel too guilty to continue playing (and slowing them down), and quit.

Comment #1: Ugly In Pink  on  10/02  at  07:17 PM

On men needing to prover they’re men… Joseph Campbell used to bemoan that our culture no longer had a rite of transition to manhood. The only thing that comes close is the bar mitzvah, and now that’s just an excuse to throw a party.  Maybe if we had some ritual to delineate the transition from child to adult, it would take some of the pressure to flock with the frat boys.

Comment #2: pablo  on  10/02  at  07:20 PM

....we don’t have a rite of passage for women, either, and they seem to mature comparatively OK.

Comment #3: Well, what?  on  10/02  at  07:36 PM

This Guyland thing happened a lot to us when we lived in small-town hell for three years and a week. I would get invitations from other men—these are all nerdy professors we’re talking about here—to play poker or to watch football. Since I was concentrating on developing the credentials to leave small-town hell, I usually demurred, but sometimes I’d go just to seem like one of the tribe. What a nightmare. Guys who were ordinary liberal nerds would yell at the television screen or tell stories about how their wives emasculated them. And I almost got kicked out of the tribe when I mentioned that Ms. F would love to play poker sometime and was in fact pretty good at it. How dare I bring a woman into the den? Didn’t I know what the rules were? Sheesh.

Comment #4: felagund  on  10/02  at  07:36 PM

That’s one of Kimmel’s suggestions, pablo.  My hesitation is that it doesn’t do anything to challenge the biggest problem, which is the way that masculinity is construct that puts men above women, straight men above gay men, and is used as a pecking order method overall.

Comment #5: Amanda Marcotte  on  10/02  at  07:46 PM

Perhaps the rite of passage could involve pegging then.

Comment #6: Ugly In Pink  on  10/02  at  07:46 PM

the ominous event called The Talk (are we a couple/where is this going?) was mentioned in his interviews and always initiated by young women.  This broke my heart and made me want to start a counseling service.  (Rule One: If you start The Talk, end it.  Relationships shouldn’t be based on who blinked first.)

I am definitely seeing the wisdom of this in light of my last, toxic-masculinity-laced relationship, but what’s the alternative?  (I don’t mean that in a snarky way.  I honestly don’t know.)

Comment #7: killjoy  on  10/02  at  07:48 PM

I think one thing that’s often overlooked in this sort of thing is the effect that zero-sum materialism has had with this sort of thing. At least in my experience, part of the problem is an attitude that reduces everything down to a competition. Everything. So if you’re not competing, you’re not a “Real Man”.

Comment #8: Karmakin  on  10/02  at  07:50 PM

but what’s the alternative

If you’re in a position where you think you need to have “The Talk” and are at all apprehensive about his reaction to it, dump him.

If you’re not apprehensive, it’s probably not necessary to ask, but if you decide to anyway, it kinda goes: “so, are we a couple or what?”
“god I hope so, otherwise i’ve been faithful for nothing!”

and then you both have a good laugh and/or sex.

Comment #9: Ugly In Pink  on  10/02  at  07:57 PM

I always thought women’s right of passage was menstruation - that that’s what separates the girls from the women.

Comment #10: chingona  on  10/02  at  08:04 PM

killjoy: The alternative is to date guys who tell you from the beginning that they like you and like being with you and eventually that they love you, if they do, like normal human beings, without being guided or begged or cajoled into it. They don’t make you wonder where the relationship is going, because they’re right there in it with you, not being dragged along or carried. They do their share of the driving.

There is, of course, nothing wrong with saying, “So, are we, like, boyfriend and girlfriend now or what?” if you’re not sure. But then a normal decent guy who likes you that way will just say, “Hey, wow, I guess we are!” It won’t be something you pry out of him or get as a favor; it’ll be just as exciting for him as it presumably is for you.

Comment #11: sophonisba  on  10/02  at  08:06 PM

Interesting how two things go together.  Amanda:

I think [Kimmel] sees young women in the same category as thoughtful coaches, good teachers, and demanding bosses—-a pressure that can grow young men up.  I’m not so sure.

Ugly in Pink:

... it’s because if we don’t instantly kick ass at it they do the condescendingly patient teacher routine, sighing and rolling eyes…

...
‘cause that’s kinda the treatment I sometimes got when I was in high school or uni from girls/women who were trying to be relationship coaches and teachers and demanding bosses rather, than, well, girlfriends, i.e. your equal and partner.  It’s hardly surprising that if the young women is turned into some sort of weird combination of mommy and shift boss then the young men flee into escapist behaviour.  You’re twenty, say, male and sensible.  If want to be lectured at then there’s always your parents or profs, and if you want to be criticized for not doing things right when you and your supervisor are equally ignorant then there’s always the shit min.wage jobs you’re working to stay in school.

I’m damned sure that blame shouldn’t lie with the young women in general.  (Let’s leave aside the dsyfunctional people who aren’t happy unless they’re complaining; the woods are full of ‘em, male and female.)  Young girls and young women and older women are all propagandized by the metaculture into the myth that it’s their job to “fix” or improve or mature their man.  Like Amanda, (I believe), I’m not so sure that that’s a good idea.  For a start, the woman seeking to be this coach/teacher/boss may not be any more clued in to what makes a relationship work than the man in question.  Hell, she might even be less mature, or inexperienced, or just plain wrong.  But if we brainwash young women into thinking that That’s Their Job then they will do it, and drive even more cars into this trainwreck of a dating culture.

I’m not well-equipped to talk about Guyland.  I didn’t really have close male friends until my mid-twenties, (all girls and women), and it was well into my late thirties that I spent as much time around men as around women, so I’m probably a poor person to talk about how Guyland boys think.  But I’m Guy enough to know that if the system turns your gf into your life coach then you don’t want to be around to be condescended to.

And count me in with Amanda on the notion that it’s really fucking irritating to have Fun things always written off as Immature Things.

Comment #12: seeker6079  on  10/02  at  08:07 PM

I learned the best way to avoid Guyhood was to avoid guys.  I’ve always had more female friends than male.  I didn’t play or watch sports, have no interest in poker.  So I’ve always been in the middle of Gal-land, which is so much nicer.  (It smells better too).

Comment #13: Maldoror  on  10/02  at  08:09 PM

Funny about the “are we boyfriend or girlfriend” Talk.  For a really, really toxic take on it look at a recent Family Guy: the lad-to-lad message is “hey, if you don’t fuck her right away she’ll fuck somebody else first chance she gets, so man up and forget about getting to know her”.

Comment #14: seeker6079  on  10/02  at  08:15 PM

It’s hardly surprising that if the young women is turned into some sort of weird combination of mommy and shift boss then the young men flee into escapist behaviour.

The really sensible response would not to start acting like even more of a juvenile ass to spite the person, but to fuckin’ dump them, actually.

Comment #15: Ugly In Pink  on  10/02  at  08:33 PM

“There is, of course, nothing wrong with saying, “So, are we, like, boyfriend and girlfriend now or what?” if you’re not sure. But then a normal decent guy who likes you that way will just say, “Hey, wow, I guess we are!” It won’t be something you pry out of him or get as a favor; it’ll be just as exciting for him as it presumably is for you.”

exactly.
i learned it the hard way, but every nice, decent, normal guy i ever dated who i ever initiated that abbreviated version of The Talk with reacted exactly like that and it was totally no big deal and exciting for both of us.

Comment #16: chareth  on  10/02  at  08:34 PM

killjoy, if it were me, I’d probably keep fucking him if it was fun, but keep it light and date other guys.  Because he’s just your friend, right?  So he can’t fuss if you have a date.  If you’re stuck on him, you might find that it’s a lot easier to get over a guy you’re crushing on if you meet someone awesome and new who is actually interested in dating you, too.

Talks where you agree that you are an official couple should be giddy and fun for both parties.  Anything short, don’t do it.  Seriously.  Not worth your time.

Comment #17: Amanda Marcotte  on  10/02  at  08:34 PM

Young girls and young women and older women are all propagandized by the metaculture into the myth that it’s their job to “fix” or improve or mature their man.

Interesting how some women get that message and some don’t.  I agree that this happens.  I’ve met enough young women who would immediately get into “my boyfriend is such a jerk”...maybe as a way to bond with me?  Clearly a number of women as well as men believe that relationships are supposed to work this way; those cleaning product commercials are aimed at someone.

I’ve seen young men create that dynamic, too, by refusing to make decisions.  Then when the woman they’re with gives up asking what they want and says “well, if you really don’t care what we do tonight, I’d like to go out for pizza”, they get to feel bossed around and controlled.

Comment #18: killjoy  on  10/02  at  08:41 PM

The question of “are we a couple” isn’t necessarily The Talk. If you ask when you know the answer is, “Yes!  I’m so glad you said it!”, then it’s not The Talk.  The Talk is when he’s trying to get out of it.

Comment #19: Amanda Marcotte  on  10/02  at  08:42 PM

Fun stuff = immature.

OMG I hate this idea so much!  I was not raised with it, and I don’t see how you could buy into it completely without emotionally crippling yourself.  And yet I have encountered numerous people, mostly female, who do seem to have bought it, and I would not trade for their miserable lives, no matter the comfort and freedom(?) afforded by their socioeconomic status.

I had an aquaintance who strongly disapproved of her husband playing board games and attending SCA events, because fun stuff wasn’t what mature fathers should be doing.  In response to this or his own hangups or maybe something dealing his ex-wife, he would never ever consider doing these fun things on weekends with his daughter, although I would really bet it would have been fun for her and for his friends.

Comment #20: lonespark  on  10/02  at  09:03 PM

My main social group is mainly unmarried men, by dint of being an RPG group. We integrate the two married couples and one single woman just fine with no sexual tension or oddness, and get on just fine. People do bring girlfriends in, but the fact that our hobby is very strange to outsiders don’t do that very often.

Are we just strange?

Comment #21: Marc Mielke  on  10/02  at  09:21 PM

If you are, it’s in a good way.

Comment #22: Amanda Marcotte  on  10/02  at  09:32 PM

I think that the movie, “Shaun of the Dead” illustrates the workings of Guyland perfectly. What was so refreshing about the movie was that, unlike so many movies with the “guy becomes a man through the love of a good woman”, it didn’t make the girlfriend seem like a fun-killing shrew for wanting more out of their relationship than going to the same pub night after night. She just seemed like a normal, healthy person with reasonable hopes and expectations for her life.

Comment #23: Echolalia  on  10/02  at  09:33 PM

I had an aquaintance who strongly disapproved of her husband playing board games and attending SCA events, because fun stuff wasn’t what mature fathers should be doing.

On the other hand, there are a lot of “mature mothers” who don’t get to have a fun hobby because they’re at home doing second shift while daddy is out at sword-fighting practice or a Risk tournament.  I saw this happen to my parents, and I’m pretty sure my mother is still a little emotionally crippled for it: she doesn’t really have any side interests outside of the domestic sphere, which can make her a royal pain in the ass as the domestic sphere requires less and less constant maintenance. 

Bottom line?  Going off to have fun with your friends or participate in a hobby while your wife is stuck home taking care of your kids, cleaning your house, and cooking you dinner is shitty behavior.

Comment #24: The Opoponax  on  10/02  at  09:55 PM

Funny about the “are we boyfriend or girlfriend” Talk.  For a really, really toxic take on it look at a recent Family Guy: the lad-to-lad message is “hey, if you don’t fuck her right away she’ll fuck somebody else first chance she gets, so man up and forget about getting to know her”.

hmm, not the take away I got.  It seemed to me the message was that you shouldn’t try and play manipulative games as they can back fire.  Considering the way Brian ignored all of her signals it isn’t surprising that she decided he just wanted to be friends and moved on. 

Regarding the book, it seems like there is a move to place relative value judgments on different forms of entertainment.  Video games are considered masculine and immature, which completely ignores the massive casual gaming market that skews much older and feminine.  Watching sports is bad and escapism, yet gymnastics, ice skating, dancing with the starts, reality TV don’t seem to fall in to this category for some reason?

You can ignore you significant other just as easily by watching movies they aren’t interested in, or reading magazines or books.  Why are video games considered any different then soduko or crossword puzzles? 

I think the problem here is that problem behaviors are being conflated with activities that are in fact neutral.  Poker night isn’t bad, and there isn’t any reason it can’t be co-ed.  Poker night is a problem when it’s an excuse for a bunch of guys to ignore their wives and act like chauvinist jack asses.  My last poker night was co-ed, my pool team is co-ed, and the last two parties I went to involved a co-ed group of people sitting around playing rock band.  It’s the clubhouse no girls allowed attitude that is the problem, not the activities.

Comment #25: Jason K  on  10/02  at  09:56 PM

As for the last para of Amanda’s post, to be a “failed” women is to be a sort of nonentity..not a man, not a “real” woman.  Odd, pitied by women (sometimes, though also sometimes envied and resented) and often perceived as a threat by Guyland guys. You are called masculine, but only in the “ugly and unfuckable” sense, at least by those who dislike you. I know, cause I am definitely in this category.

Have a terrible time relating to many women, because I don’t “do” femininity all that well, and thus appear frumpy/odd to a lot of women. And am deficient in the ability to discuss clothes with any enthusiasm.  Not a tomboy, hate sports. So guy geeks and the rarer girl geeks tend to be my friends.

Guyland guys tend to either fear me or hate me. Not that I’m such an intellectual giant, just because I don’t play that game. Thankfully, age and marriage to a non-Guylander has made it irrelevant. Old women don’t technically exist in Guyland, and so they mostly leave you the hell alone.

Comment #26: emjaybee  on  10/02  at  11:47 PM

Old women don’t technically exist in Guyland, and so they mostly leave you the hell alone.


Oh they do, as objects of vicious scorn.

Comment #27: Lamenter  on  10/02  at  11:57 PM

Jason, if that’s what you got out of this, I question whether you read it.

Comment #28: Amanda Marcotte  on  10/03  at  12:20 AM

Jason, if that’s what you got out of this, I question whether you read it.

Nope, Haven’t read it.  All of my impressions have come from reading your various post regarding this book.  I’m not sure really why there would be any mention of video games or poker nights except possibly as examples of things guys use an excuse to make a boys only club.  However from your post I got the distinct impression that there was a theme that playing games and watching sports was a part of guyland and fairly adolescent.  My point being that ANYTHING can be used in that manner, an demonizing specific activities is not helpful.

Comment #29: Jason K  on  10/03  at  05:17 AM

If you put it like “one of the “responsibilities” that drag young men kicking and screaming into adulthood is the Love Of A Good Woman.”,  then yes, I’m not surprised that it strikes the wrong note.

But for “The Love Of A Good Woman”, substitute “caring about someone other than yourself”.  Now, for 90% of ‘guyland’ the two are synonyms, but the second form is more informative.

The next big step in maturation is “caring about someone other than yourself, who is completely dependent upon you for their very existance”, which is usally “having a kid”, but could also be caring for a sick parent or partner.

Comment #30: Snarki, child of Loki  on  10/03  at  09:13 AM

Snarki, Child of Loki, Bearer of a Cool Name:

Isn’t part of the danger of this sort of nonsense process the actual definition and use of the word “maturity”?  I’m not convinced that having an established long-term romantic relationship is synonymous with “mature”.  We don’t call women who have other priorities to see to first, or who choose not to commit “immature”.  (Guyland calls them other names, granted.)  But we do hang that tag on men.  Why?

Comment #31: seeker6079  on  10/03  at  10:44 AM

“Thus things like sports (which Kimmel loves), video games and porn are escapes from the pressures of adulthood…”

Oh, hell yes. And who cares? As long as all my bills are paid and I get to work on time, who cares how many iterations of Legend of Zelda I have played?

Comment #32: Falconer  on  10/03  at  10:54 AM

It’s like you didn’t read my post, either.  I made it clear that it’s not that these things are inherently wrong, or there’s something inherent to football and not gymnastics or whatever.  Sweeping generalizations about sports or video games were read into this by yourself, but not there.  The problem is that these are areas where men deliberately and unto themselves define them as “no girls allowed”.  It’s not football.  It’s that football fandom is coded in a way to be hostile to women, and so women don’t participate, at least in equal numbers or even close to equal numbers.

Comment #33: Amanda Marcotte  on  10/03  at  11:20 AM

Snarki, you know, pets are in that category, too.

I’m not endorsing the idea that maturity comes after those experiences, but you know.  Having pets is a responsibility that I see a lot of young people of both genders take on with trepidation.

Comment #34: Amanda Marcotte  on  10/03  at  11:21 AM

However from your post I got the distinct impression that there was a theme that playing games and watching sports was a part of guyland and fairly adolescent.

Was it this part of what Amanda said that made you think that she agrees with Kimmel?

And while Kimmel admits that there’s some value to the extended adolescence developed in our society—-especially when it comes to young people delaying marriage and child-bearing—-and he’s not anti-fun, the intense focus on the escapist aspects of Guyland as negative features made me uncomfortable(emphasis mine). It’s perfectly possible for grown adults to make the conscious choice to avoid some of the markers of adulthood, like marriage or child-bearing, so that they can have more time to focus on their creative endeavors or even just playing video games if they want.

You might want to check up on your reading comprehension skillz.

Comment #35: Mnemosyne  on  10/03  at  12:21 PM

It’s perfectly possible for grown adults to make the conscious choice to avoid some of the markers of adulthood, like marriage or child-bearing, so that they can have more time to focus on their creative endeavors or even just playing video games if they want.  Escapism is sanity-making in a harsh world.

Amen! Especially since the world has been getting harsher every single day since roundabout June, 2000.

The problem is that sexism causes guys to construct women as the enemy.

That’s a bit of a tautology. Being an immature and entitled arsehole causes a guy to construct women as the enemy, and that tendency is more often than not encouraged and fostered by both “family values,” the education system and the MSM.

There’s nothing wrong with sports or video games per se—-in fact, both provide plenty of benefits besides just fun—-but it’s an observable reality that a lot of guys try to cordon video games or sports enthusiasm as a men-only area, treating women like interlopers.

Which is acting against their own interests: women who are genuinely into videogames or sports or computers or other “male” hobbies have an added level of attractiveness. As you note, their exclusion contributes to the over-all vicious cycle.

the ominous event called The Talk (are we a couple/where is this going?) was mentioned in his interviews and always initiated by young women.  This broke my heart and made me want to start a counseling service.  (Rule One: If you start The Talk, end it.  Relationships shouldn’t be based on who blinked first.)

An excellent rule for young women. As I’ve grown older, I’ve put myself in a position where my answer to the question “where is this going?” has become “exactly where we agreed it was going from the beginning.” Adultville (which is different from the suburb of Grownup Acres) is about knowing what you want and need, respecting what others want and need, and managing expectations.

The Talk, and the uncertainty underlying it, is about a woman indulging in the ultimate fallacy of relationships: that one can willfully effect change in another individual.

True believers in Guyland might get over needing to live 24/7 in a homosocial world.  It’s stressful, and often it’s easier to be yourself around a girlfriend or a wife, and so eventually you rebel enough to go there.

It’s a testement to my personal opposition to the institution of marriage and exclusive relationships that it overcomes my natural laziness.

Seriously, though, Adultville by definition allows a guy to be himself, whether it’s in the company of men or women. It doesn’t preclude caring about someone other than yourself, either.

I had an aquaintance who strongly disapproved of her husband playing board games and attending SCA events, because fun stuff wasn’t what mature fathers should be doing.  In response to this or his own hangups or maybe something dealing his ex-wife, he would never ever consider doing these fun things on weekends with his daughter, although I would really bet it would have been fun for her and for his friends.

That’s the sort of woman who’s lost me two long-term friends for no good reason. And these two weren’t and aren’t irresponsible fathers or helpmates in any way. But man, those are two sad, defeated guys—can’t be good for the kids to see.

Comment #36: Gracchus  on  10/03  at  12:50 PM

The Talk, and the uncertainty underlying it, is about a woman indulging in the ultimate fallacy of relationships: that one can willfully effect change in another individual.

I find this insulting.

Comment #37: killjoy  on  10/03  at  12:54 PM

I find this insulting.

Sorry you feel that way. A bit more info on why you find it insulting might open up the dialogue.

If it’s an issue of perceived sexism, I can see the problem. Just to clarify, I could have made exactly the same comment about a man—the fallacy is gender-neutral. But in this case I was placing The Talk in the context that Michael Kimmel and Amanda seem to accept: something a woman is more likely to initiate.

I also suppose I should have qualified “individual” with “adult,” but it’s pretty clear what sort of relationships are being discussed.

Comment #38: Gracchus  on  10/03  at  01:12 PM

Since I’m not sure why you’d find my comment insulting, I’ll try to address your earlier comment, which might be related:

I am definitely seeing the wisdom of this in light of my last, toxic-masculinity-laced relationship, but what’s the alternative?  (I don’t mean that in a snarky way.  I honestly don’t know.)

If you’re looking for a genuine alternative to The Talk, it’s expressing one’s needs and expectations from the outset of the relationship (instead of the game-playing and outright lying that many men and women do for the reasons I discussed above). That tends to cut a lot of potential problems off at the pass.

Of course, needs and expectations change, but at that point the language of The Talk (“Are we a couple? Where is this [abstract] going?”) isn’t particularly helpful, as it assumes that both parties should be thinking the same way.

It’s more useful if one says something like “You know, we got into this without heavy expectations, but I really like you, and I would like to [insert your version of “taking it to the next level” here]. Whaddaya think?”

Doing so requires maturity and a willingness to take an emotional risk, since it’s a unilateral move. But, even with partners stuck in Guyland, you’d find that couching it that way might get a better response than The Talk. And better yet, it’s not subject to the fallacy I mentioned.

Comment #39: Gracchus  on  10/03  at  01:37 PM

‘cause that’s kinda the treatment I sometimes got when I was in high school or uni from girls/women who were trying to be relationship coaches and teachers and demanding bosses rather, than, well, girlfriends, i.e. your equal and partner.  It’s hardly surprising that if the young women is turned into some sort of weird combination of mommy and shift boss then the young men flee into escapist behaviour.  You’re twenty, say, male and sensible.  If want to be lectured at then there’s always your parents or profs, and if you want to be criticized for not doing things right when you and your supervisor are equally ignorant then there’s always the shit min.wage jobs you’re working to stay in school.

Though this dynamic is present and I have experienced this myself with one woman I dated, I think this behavior is endemic to both genders who believe they know better than anyone else and feel it is their sacred duty to boss and treat others dismissively as a result.  Known plenty of blowhards in undergrad and a few grad courses who acted high and mighty towards other classmates such as myself…...and it felt so good when such blowhards had their delusions of superiority smashed by the rest of us when we exposed such delusions for the BS it actually was….especially when it was underscored by some being suspended/expelled for academic reasons.

Comment #40: exholt  on  10/03  at  02:03 PM

Well, What? said, “....we don’t have a rite of passage for women, either, and they seem to mature comparatively OK. “

And as chingona said, women come with a built-in rite of passage - menarche, or first menstruation (at least, when the average age of menstruation was 13-14 yrs, not 9!).  Speaking from my own point of view (I started just prior to my 14th birthday), it was a defining moment.  Now my body was behaving like my *mother’s* body; in fact, I could become a mother, now.  It’s difficult to describe the emotional aspect, but the closest I can come is a feeling of potentiality.  That first bleed made me *feel* more adult, like it was time to start making some of my own decisions, and it certainly made my mother start treating me in a more adult fashion.

Women also come with a built-in rite of passage into old age - menopause.  No number of hot Greek cabana boys and Italian sports cars will change the fact that we can no longer bear children.  The stopping of menustruation means we’re *old*, and we can (at least metaphorically speaking) belong to ourselves now, rather than our children.

Men, especially those trapped in Guyland, don’t have those kinds of bodily cues; thus, the need for other men to tell them that they’re men now, not boys.  The “Love of a Good Woman” BS is a Victorian meme which really kinda explains it all, doesn’t it? smile

Comment #41: Mhorag  on  10/03  at  02:04 PM

I’ll leave the rational discussion of this to others.

I fucking hate guyland.  To be fair, I probably hate it as much for selfish reasons, as for my distaste for the behaviors involved.  I hated it in high school, when my dislike for it forced me into social outcast land.  I fucking hated it in college when it sucked in some of my friends, and left me feeling there was something wrong with me for not wanting to be involved.  I fucking hated the way it would take activities I enjoyed (sports, for example), and turn them into fucking dick swinging contests.  I fucking hate the way it still pops up from time to time.  The recent invitation to a friend’s bachelor party comes to mind. It was all I could do to reply in a civil manner to the organizer of that

I fucking hate it

Fuck.

/rant

Comment #42: Ian  on  10/03  at  02:37 PM

It’s more useful if one says something like “You know, we got into this without heavy expectations, but I really like you, and I would like to [insert your version of “taking it to the next level” here]. Whaddaya think?”

To me that qualifies as The Talk, and I didn’t realize it did for you.  Thank you for clarifying.

Comment #43: killjoy  on  10/03  at  05:18 PM

Didn’t realize it didn’t, rather.

Comment #44: killjoy  on  10/03  at  05:18 PM

And to clarify, what bothered me about what you said is that in my mind it’s perfectly reasonable (albeit, I’ve discovered, totally useless) to realize your feelings are different from what you anticipated, encounter a lot of mixed signals, and say “Hey, I want to know where this is going, because if it’s not going anywhere I need to bail out.”  I don’t think asking that question is controlling or an “indulgence” in “fallacy”.  I think it’s just useless.

Comment #45: killjoy  on  10/03  at  05:25 PM

To me that qualifies as The Talk, and I didn’t realize it did[n’t] for you.  Thank you for clarifying.

Sure thing. But don’t belittle a straightforward approach by calling it The Talk, which is all about fear and weasel words and (usually) the woman insisting she knows what’s best for the couple. I’m sorry your ex disappointed you, but whether he mistook it for The Talk (as Guyland residents are wont to do) or honestly wasn’t interested in taking it to the next level (which is the risk we take when we open up), all for the best in the long run.

And to clarify, what bothered me about what you said is that in my mind it’s perfectly reasonable (albeit, I’ve discovered, totally useless) to realize your feelings are different from what you anticipated, encounter a lot of mixed signals, and say “Hey, I want to know where this is going, because if it’s not going anywhere I need to bail out.” I don’t think asking that question is controlling or an “indulgence” in “fallacy”.  I think it’s just useless.

As noted about, it’s very reasonable that your feelings might change over time. And if he deliberately sent mixed signals, that’s a whole other problem.

In any case, it’s not useless to be honest about these things. Even though the wording isn’t great (still an abstract “where this is going” instead of “this is where I’d like to go with you; interested?”) you were ultimately expressing what would be good for you, not him (which exempts you from indulging in the fallacy). He said it wasn’t going anywhere (or somesuch—this is why the wording isn’t great, and why it might be interpreted as The Talk), you took the hit, stuck to your guns and bailed. Good on you—on a number of levels.

Comment #46: Gracchus  on  10/03  at  05:51 PM

Well, that’s not what happened in my last relationship.  What happened is that I was actually lied to.  But I take your point.

Comment #47: killjoy  on  10/03  at  07:44 PM

Sure thing. But don’t belittle a straightforward approach by calling it The Talk, which is all about fear and weasel words and (usually) the woman insisting she knows what’s best for the couple.

That ties rather forcefully into a previous thread, (to which I can’t find the damned link ... it started out as a discussion on a stupid hamburger commercial with a guy crying), where The Talk was discussed at length.  I took the position that most men were wary of The Talk because of its usually very unilateral nature, usually targeted at them.  IIRC I noted that most men learn through bitter and repeated experience that hearing “We need to talk” is bad news because it is code language for “you fucked up, let me tell you how”. 

Many others vigorously disagreed with this position, to say the least.

Comment #48: seeker6079  on  10/04  at  12:07 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.