Thursday, November 29, 2001

The ‘typical male’ is outdated
Commentary by Paul Mazurkiewicz

What do you expect, I’m a guy.

It’s Sunday night, so of course I’m watching television, enjoying “The Simpsons.”

During the commercial break, an ad for the show “Dark Angel” comes on. The men in the room all drop silent long enough to watch Jessica Alba strut across the screen in tight black leather.

Now, this show has no redeeming qualities, besides Jessica Alba’s fantastic ‘acting talents.” (I have, unfortunately, watched it.) So it made me wonder, how the hell is this show still on the air? Simple enough. The producers take advantage of the stereotypical guy. Guys will supposedly watch anything as long as there is a “hot chick” running in tight and/or scant clothing or if there’s all sorts of violence and explosions. By exploiting this “standard,’ the network helps keep the stereotype alive.

Our shared culture, which often boils down to mass media, reinforces this archetypal male. Movies such as “American Pie” glorify the sole-minded chase for a “piece of ass.” MTV features videos with all sorts of sexually suggestive material. Flipping through the radio, there is constant praising of sexual conquest in songs cutting across all genres of music. It is considered a mark of distinction if you can get many women, preferably attractive ones, in bed, often. This is where the double standard comes in. If a man has a lot of sex, especially with different partners, he’s “the man.”

A woman does the same thing and she’s considered a “slut” or “whore.” So for the male of the species, it is a much larger part of their gender identification to get sex, and often. Those who do not are often looked down upon, made fun of, etc.

Of course, being a “man” inherently assumes heterosexuality, so, the easiest way to insult one’s “manhood” is call them “gay.” And of course, what is the expected response to someone slinging such accusations?

“Don’t make me have to kick your ass.”

The other way to prove you’re a “man”: beat up whoever offends or insults you. This macho posturing goes on daily. A guy is expected to attack anyone who degrades his woman’s honor. There’s the idealistic form, the “knight in shining armor,” chivalrous, slaying-the-dragon-to-save-the-fair-maiden type. There’s centuries of literature and movies reinforcing this ideal. But, unfortunately, it now has degraded into a street fighting mentality of calling out someone for smearing your girl’s name.

Societal pressures, especially on teenagers in their formative years, reinforce this.

You’re “not a man” if you let someone go on talking about you or your woman without punching their lights out. And that’s if you manage to “win” a fight. It’s fairly humiliating to get beat up, and then have someone question your manhood on top of it while you’re still struggling with your personal identity in your formative years.

So where does this come from? It would seem to me that these ideals might have been evolutionary necessary. Men are fertile every time they engage in sex; women are not. I hope everyone knows this by now. From an evolutionary standpoint, all sex that cannot cause reproduction is useless. After all, humans are one of the few species that has sex for the sole purpose of pleasure. So, using this perspective, it would make sense that men have as much sex as possible, and women have sex only when able to reproduce. And the tendency towards violence as a defense mechanism is obviously important for protecting oneself and one’s offspring against predators and rivals, especially when you or yours are specifically threatened.

However, in this “advanced” age, we no longer have need for these primitive ideals.

We do not need to worry about reproducing. As a species, we have managed to trump Darwin. So we should use our “higher intellect” and create reasonable gender models that are not so objectionable to us. We need to teach men to accept other men without need for macho posturing, and women to appreciate men who do not follow these primitive rules.

Maybe all this “double standard” and “ridiculous gender role” talk is all wrong. Maybe I just don’t understand my fellow men. According to TheSpark.com’s gender test, I am, after all, a woman. But I’d like to think that I have some idea about my own gender.

So, until the day we can cast aside these silly gender roles and absurd stereotypes, I’ll be staring at women and beating up people, because you know I’d hate for people to think I wasn’t a “man,” right?