Women studies at Sydney's University.

This week's topic is Judith Butler's "Gender Performativity", which is standard reading in ALL units of women's study. I believe it is important for MRA's to understand the "feminist discourse", but I also beliecve the feminist discourse is full of shit. In this light, I'll repost an essay I wrote on the topic of Judith Butler last year.

What are little girls made of? Sugar and spice and everything nice!
What are little boys made of? Slugs and snails and puppy dog tails!
That’s what boys are made of. - Trad.

Teresa de Lauretis and Judith Butler propose that the causes for differences in gendered behaviour stem primarily from social practice, which is influenced by the theory that new knowledge and skills are shaped by existing perceptions and experiences, and therefore ways of being masculine and feminine can change from place to place, generation to generation and context to context. Masculinity in modern society is founded on biological influences, and defined by the dominant discourses in society, including the media, schools, the courts, the family and others. Certainly, there is no more dominant a discourse in western society than that of the Media and popular culture, which go hand in hand to influence the ways in which people think and act.

When we consider this in terms of the four propositions that de Lauretis proposes, if the representation of gender is its construction, and historical Western culture is the engraving of the history of that construction, then perhaps Oprah Winfrey and Jerry Springer, “Desperate Housewives” and “Sex in the City” form both the foundation and the embodiment of the modern discourse regarding the construction and nature of masculinity. Therefore, according to de Lauretis, to understand this construction we must consider the portrayal of the modern man, and how this portrayal influences the discourses within society. In this context, and in this essay, I do not seek an understanding of what it is to “be a man”, but an understanding of some of the processes that influence the behaviour of, and towards a masculine figure.

The cornerstone of the media’s (and therefore popular culture) presentation of men and masculinity is, in my opinion, built upon negative stereotypes and double standards which are influenced by, and perhaps represent a distortion of masculinity as a biological fact. This reinforces and creates the negative perception of men, and almost certainly influences the ways in which men behave, creating yet another definition of what comprises masculinity. During a monologue on the Tonight Show, Jay Leno mentioned the strange case of 2500 pigs that had gotten drunk because their feed had fermented. “You know how you can tell when pigs are drunk?” asked Leno. “They start acting like men.” This approach towards masculinity is embodied through every facet of the media: Oprah has built a veritable media empire discussing topics such as domestic violence (with an emphasis on male-instigated violence) and male stalkers.

Ideally, the medium of talk shows would be conductive towards balanced debate, however this is not always the case, as illustrated in the episode “Men, Sex and Power” of the Donahue show . Ostensibly a public discussion on Feminism from the perspective of men, it was obvious that this discussion would be dominated by women in facing the challenge of feminist-hating men. In this one episode, we find examples of many of the devices used to influence the perception and behaviour of men through the media, and as Nathanson and Young suggest, the question of blame is a major feature of the show. One (male) guest wears a skirt and long hair, and a woman points out that he looks totally ridiculous.

He justifies his appearance by pointing out that women often wear pants and have short hair, but as this episode implicitly suggests, it is appropriate for women to challenge stereotypes, but not men. Then they go on to applaud one woman for stating that feminism could liberate men. Another woman calls the men “pompous prima donnas” for talking about their anger against feminism, and yet another dismisses the men for “carrying grudges” - as Nathanson and Young suggest, the men could not possibly have had a legitimate reason for feeling angry, except with reference to personal problems - an implication that the men (the criticised) are inferior to the women (the critic).

Certainly, the viewpoint that men who attempt to take the role of critic are “weak” was one that was constantly reiterated through the episode, and this style of criticism is characteristic of the dominant discourse as shown in any number of television shows, magazines, advertisements and other forms of media influence. It is important to reiterate that the message that this behaviour is “weak” goes hand in hand with the implicit suggestion that to be “weak” or to embody the very behaviour that is criticised is not desirable, and therefore boys and men who are exposed to these discourses should not behave in an undesirable fashion. This is confused even further, with what I would certainly consider the glorification of hero figures (such as “Superman”) as ideal models of masculinity - the same masculinity that is challenged through the same popular discourse.

With very little positive depiction of men in popular culture, with the possible exception of hero figures (many of whom are defined by their flaws) the constant criticism and reiteration of what constitutes masculine behaviour reinforces the very stereotypes it attempts to denounce, contributing to a culture where to be masculine is to both aspire towards, and condemn an ideal figure of what it is to be a man. This contradiction both embraces and shuns the natural biological inclinations, resulting in a culture of self-hating men. We can see the manifestation of this contradiction throughout the life of a man, and is most evident early in a boy’s life through another of de Lauretis’ and Althusser’s ‘ideological state appararti’ - schools.

Columnist Glenn Sacks writes: “I wait for my son as he stands in line after school to get his daily behaviour report. The first grade students are fidgety in the line, which is probably why they are the "bad kids" who need the behaviour reports to begin with. All 10 of these children have one thing in common - they're all boys. Soon the little boys will wear the same sad faces that are on their behaviour reports, next to the teacher’s angry exclamation points. They will trudge home and await punishment, knowing, of course, that punishment is what they deserve - after a while, the boys resign themselves to their fate.”

According to Sacks, it is good that these boys will learn this lesson, for statistics show that boys are far more likely to be disciplined, suspended, held back or expelled. Even in primary school, the biological inclination of males not to sit perfectly still, creates a second-class environment where boys are encouraged to behave more like the girls. To quote one of my high school teachers: “You boys should be held back until you’re as mature as the girls”. The conflict in the home and school environment is not so much the conflict of glorification versus denouncement of the masculist ideals that we find in popular discourse (though it goes hand in hand to affect the ways that masculinity asserts itself), but the conflict of masculinity as a social construct versus masculinity as a biological fact.

As Michael Gurian puts it, “if you have a ‘normal’ boy - with an XY chromosome whose body and brain were created by appropriate testosterone surges - he will himself be dominated by the hormone that made him what he is”. In other words, he will be more irritable, have aggressive tendencies and increased motor activity, which form the characteristics of masculinity as a biological fact.

We can see that the perceptions of what constitutes masculine behaviour may be constructed upon the foundations of masculinity as biological fact, and masculinity as social construct; de Lauretis’ proposed four propositions suggest the idea that masculinity, and gender in general is a construct of the popular discourses in society. However, it is in my belief that it is the conflict between the demands of these foundations that defines much of what we consider to be "masculine", as we can see through countless examples of the media both glorifying and denouncing what they perceive to be models of ideal masculinity.
_________________
I'm not a father, but I will be one day. That's why Father's rights are important to me.