Here's a little something to do next time you are watching a film or TV show which contains violence: have a look at who's dying. I'm not talking about main characters here, I'm talking about the 'collateral damage', the nameless nobody's in the background who are getting killed or hurt in order to show how dangerous the situation really is. You know, the bomb goes off, or the monster's rampaging around eating people, or random people are being caught in the cross-fire of a shoot-out. Chances are, most - if not all - of the people you see dying will be men.
Now, this is post may come across somewhat as mere whining, but it's a good introduction into a larger issue: the idea of male expendability. Being as it is quite a large issue, I've decided to break it into parts so as to not have one absolutely massive post.
Why start with films and television? Well, they seem to be a good way to start thinking about a cultural outlook that most people don't really notice. You can literally sit there and see it being played out in front of you again and again.
So, is that it? Men tend to be the ones getting killed in films? Well, yes, but also no. Let's have a look at how these deaths occur: they are often very graphic, violent, and incredibly casual. They have no emotional resonance whatsoever - the killing of all these men is occasionally to make a point, but often just for entertainment value.
Think about when a woman is killed in a film - is it ever casual? I cannot think of one single example where it is. Women's deaths are either primary plot points, or used as proof that the villain has gone 'beyond the moral event horizon' - ok, so they'd done some bad things (possibly involving the deaths of piles of men), but now they've killed a woman which makes them really evil.
In comparison, men's deaths on screen barely go noticed. How many times have you seen an action sequence where something blew up, and you didn't even think about the fact that - hang on - that's just killed those 10 men you saw a minute ago? How many times do policemen, security guards, or just people who are in the wrong place at the wrong time get shot and the action just moves on and, oh look, we've forgotten about it? How many times do truckloads of soldiers get mown down without a seconds thought? How many times have men's deaths been used as a joke? Think about that one: how many people would have laughed at the Joker's pencil trick if the victim had been a woman? I'm guessing not many.
We're just far more casual about killing men than women. In manwomanmyth's video 'Men are Disposable - 1/4', he mentions women complaining about being treated as sex objects on screen, and follows up by saying men are treated as nothing more than death objects. The medley of violence that follows is incredibly nasty - it starts at about 5:30 if you want to see it.
He also does go into another point in the comparison of male vs. female deaths on screen: the female discretion shot. This is where a woman's death occurs out of shot or off-screen (think about all those times you've seen a gun pointed at a woman, and then it cuts to a shot of the window from outside and you see a flash and hear a bang). It's quite remarkable when you start noticing quite how graphic a film or show will be with shooting, blowing up, burning, mutilating or otherwise destroying multiple men, and then there's a female discretion shot.
Now, here's the thing - I'm not saying "I want to see more women graphically killed on screen". What I am saying is that I find it remarkable that films that are graphically violent towards men have these female discretion shots in them.
Of course, I understand why they do it, and this is where things start to move on from me whining about films to real-world outlooks. It comes down to the fact that males are seen to be more expendable than females. From a Darwinian perspective, this makes perfect sense, but it still exists as a general principle in society today - ableit one that isn't said out loud and many people don't see. Not only that, but men have an innate drive to protect women - often by putting themselves in harm's way. It's expected. Violence against women is, and has always been, far less acceptable than violence against men. Men's deaths are simply not as tragic in society's eyes (I will be going into this in more detail in an upcoming post). This, coupled with the now almost inevitable feminist backlash if women are treated badly on film, leads to this discrepancy.
At this point I'm going to mention slasher films, because I'm sure someone's thinking "hang on, almost all the victims in those films are girls". But that's the point - you're supposed to know how terrible the killer is, how much of a psychopath. These films are supposed to unnerve and frighten you. The deaths of the girls in them, however graphic or seemingly throwaway, are the central plot of the film. They are the point of its existing in the first place. They may be casual in the sense of quick and not overblown, but the death is always the centrepiece of the scene - you're never in a position where the death is really just decoration.
I already mentioned men protecting women to their own detriment, and I want to have a quick look at how this is portrayed on film. Let's take the 2005 remake of King Kong. Anne Darrow gets kidnapped by Kong, and all the men go off to rescue her. In the process, dozens die, horrifically (particularly those who are unfortunate enough to get eaten by the giant tube-worms). At one point, some decide to head back to the ship, and they are branded cowards and not real men for wanting to protect their own lives from a reckless mission that is almost certainly doomed to at best fail, and at worst kill them. They are only redeemed by putting themselves back in harms way. Several of the men's deaths are treated as jokes in the dialogue (the whole 'donate the proceeds to his wife and kids' bit).
Once they do rescue Darrow, is she grateful? No, she's far more concerned about the big gorilla. Now, of course, they don't treat Kong nicely, but is it ever acknowledged that dozens of men died at the hands of this creature in an effort to save this one woman? No. Do they get any sort of service or memorial? No. Are they ever thought of again? No.
The final act is a huge lament to how terrible Kong's fortune is (whilst he kills yet more men - this time the fighter pilots), and his death is quite ridiculous in its overblown tragedy. One giant gorilla is worth your tears. Dozens of men aren't even worth thinking about.
*****
What has been the point of this post? On the surface, it really does just look like a whinge. Do I want all male deaths on screen to be replaced by female ones? No. Then what's the point?
The point is, this is a very good way of demonstrating a cultural expectation we have that most people simply do not notice: male disposability. It's a good example of the different ways we look upon and treat male vs. female death - something which is quite profoundly skewed in modern society, which affects the way we create laws and charitable foundations, how we distribute funding, how we run awareness campaigns, and I am anticipating having to do two or three more posts just to roughly cover the basics. So really, this post in an introduction to a concept which I find to be very alarming, and wish to explore in depth.
To be continued...
Showing posts with label gender roles. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gender roles. Show all posts
25/07/2010
Gender roles and the Patriarchy
I've spent the last few days looking over my list of topics, trying to find a place to begin. It's been a tough process, to be honest with you. Do I want to start off with something light, so we can begin at a gentle stroll? Do I want to start with one mother of a topic, to really get things going? Or do I opt for something more in the middle – something to get people's attention, but probably unlikely to cause anyone offence.
Not an easy decision to make, I'm sure you can imagine. And as hour upon hour ticked by, with a self-imposed deadline of putting something – anything – up tonight, I started looking for something to give me a kick-start. Then I came upon Pelle Billing's latest post, and I made my decision:
Start out with a big one.
Gender roles and the Patriarchy. Even by just typing it I can feel people sharpening their knives behind my back, waiting for me to put one foot out of line...
This is a huge topic, and I'm aware you don't want to read a dissertation from me, so I'm going to keep this brief, and really just skim over it. Apologies if it feels rushed as a result, but if you want more there is a lot to be found on the sites linked on the right, and no doubt this will be returned to in future.
Here's the MRM interpretation of the Patriarchy in a nutshell:
Males and females evolved very differently. We know this. Males evolved to be physically strong and physically tough, with honed spatial-awareness and practical skills needed in order to successfully build tools and hunt prey. Females, meanwhile, evolved the interaction and nurturing skills necessary to work together in successfully raising young. These physical characteristics evolved hand-in-hand with behavioural characteristics – put simply, males head off to provide and protect, females stay to look after home and child.
Skip forward a few thousand years, and we have developed societies. We have towns, cities, countries. We have complex economies. We have complex social constructs. But we are still behaving in our gender roles: men are going out and working, and going to war, women staying at home and looking after the children, and waiting for the men to return.
And this is where feminism and the men's rights movement begin to part ideological ways.
The commonly accepted consequence of these roles is that women came out oppressed. They were not allowed to work, not given the vote, treated like property moving from father to husband and so on. Men held the power.
Well, the MRM has this to say: that is only half the story. Men were oppressed too.
Here's how it works. When we look at 'men' within the Patriarchy, we very often place all men together. 'Men' had power. 'Men' had the vote. 'Men' ruled everything. This is true, and cannot be argued with – depending on how you are using the word 'men'.
The simple and inescapable truth is that the vast, vast majority of men did not have any power. They did not have the vote. They did not have choice in their lives. They were ruled over by those same few men who ruled over women, and were not given any special privilege for being male. In fact, the lives they were forced into by their gender role could easily be considered a lot worse. Forced military conscription. Back-breaking, dangerous, labour-intensive jobs in mines, fields and factories, jobs which even if they did not kill you directly, would massively reduce your life expectancy. Being removed from your family the majority of the day, and having no choice in the matter: if you didn't go work, you would all starve, or you would be imprisoned for debt. This was the lot of the common man, one which seems to be often forgotten by those who will quickly and loudly shout “Patriarchy!” as an excuse or reason for some pretty unpleasant attitudes and behaviours. 'Men' did not hold power. A very few men did, and wielded it universally.
The big one that people like to pull out all the time is suffrage. Women didn't have the right to vote in the same way men did. Well, yes, this is true. But it is a difficult issue to talk about, and people will tend to talk about it in generalisations – I've even spoken to a few people who were under the impression that ALL men had the vote since, well, pretty much forever. However, this was not the case. The voting franchise was male, yes, but also incredibly exclusive, pertaining to land, class, property and so forth. Universal suffrage for men aged 21 and above in the UK was achieved in 1918.
You may recognise that date in relation to suffrage for a different reason: this was the same year that propertied women over the age of 30 were granted the vote. Ten years later universal suffrage for all women aged 21 and above was achieved.
Ten years difference, from when the common man was granted the vote, to when the common woman was. Yes, before that women did not have the vote, but then neither did most men. Voting up until then was a class and property issue, not a gender one. I am not going to claim that the issue of the vote is not one to remember at all, and yes there was that ten year disparity, but I think it is important that we keep in mind quite how complex it is in comparison to the 'men had vote, women did not' statements we hear repeated without thought. 'Men' did not – they were stuck doing what they had to do, without choice, as their gender role dictated.
So having made a point in my introduction of not using history as an excuse for actions in the present, why have I just gone through that? Because the history of the Patriarchy is far more complicated than we commonly make it out to be, and it is a result of gender roles.
Then things began to change. Feminism has done a marvellous job of deconstructing the female gender role. Women no longer have to follow their traditional gender role if they don't wish to. If they do, they can, but the choices they have laid before them in the western world are manifold, and are essentially only limited by what they want to do. Whatever choices a woman makes in her life (save those that are illegal, of course), they are choices that will generally be accepted by society at large – and rightly so. It is, after all, her choice.
Men, on the other hand, are still expected to follow their traditional gender role to the letter. We have to be protectors and providers, and if not, we are deemed weak, losers, deadbeat, worthless. Men in the US still have to sign up to the draft, facing a $250,000 penalty and 5 years in Federal Prison if they fail to do so. Stay-at-home dads, whilst becoming more acceptable, are still looked upon oddly by a great many people (I have read many accounts of fathers being shunned by all the mothers waiting on the playground for their kids to come out of school). We are still expected to follow the codes of chivalry; codes which, when thought about, reduce women to the level of a child in their perceived weakness.
And so here I find myself at a crossroads, wondering which way to go. You see, that last paragraph may make it sound like I don't want to work, that I'm just whining that I can't get away without doing it. It may sound like I just don't want to do things for other people – particularly women. Neither of these are true. I just think it's about time the male gender role was deconstructed in the same way the female has been. In a world that is changing rapidly, we seem to be standing still, watching it all fly by and leave us behind with a confused look on our collective face. And in particular, I am struck by a thought: chivalry (that is, the act of doing something for a woman, possibly to your own detriment, specifically because she is female) is surely antithetical to the idea of female emancipation and equality, isn't it? So what to do?
Well, I don't have the answers, and I'd love to hear other people's thoughts. As for myself, I'm wondering if it's time to start exercising true equality in inter-gender discourse (no doubt a notion which will crop up again and again) – not doing something for a woman specifically because she is a woman and I 'should', but because I believe it is the right thing to do. And sometimes, perhaps that right thing may be to not automatically do something for her. As I said in the comment I left on the aforementioned post:
“Seems to be that, if women are not going to act in a traditional gender role, there’s no reason that I should – and to do so would be limiting myself. The thinking process I’m going through on my day-to-day life in these interactions is ‘if she were a he, would I be doing this?’.”
I'm sure this idea is going to ruffle a few people's feathers, and if it does, please do let me know, and explain why.
Thanks for reading!
Not an easy decision to make, I'm sure you can imagine. And as hour upon hour ticked by, with a self-imposed deadline of putting something – anything – up tonight, I started looking for something to give me a kick-start. Then I came upon Pelle Billing's latest post, and I made my decision:
Start out with a big one.
Gender roles and the Patriarchy. Even by just typing it I can feel people sharpening their knives behind my back, waiting for me to put one foot out of line...
This is a huge topic, and I'm aware you don't want to read a dissertation from me, so I'm going to keep this brief, and really just skim over it. Apologies if it feels rushed as a result, but if you want more there is a lot to be found on the sites linked on the right, and no doubt this will be returned to in future.
Here's the MRM interpretation of the Patriarchy in a nutshell:
Males and females evolved very differently. We know this. Males evolved to be physically strong and physically tough, with honed spatial-awareness and practical skills needed in order to successfully build tools and hunt prey. Females, meanwhile, evolved the interaction and nurturing skills necessary to work together in successfully raising young. These physical characteristics evolved hand-in-hand with behavioural characteristics – put simply, males head off to provide and protect, females stay to look after home and child.
Skip forward a few thousand years, and we have developed societies. We have towns, cities, countries. We have complex economies. We have complex social constructs. But we are still behaving in our gender roles: men are going out and working, and going to war, women staying at home and looking after the children, and waiting for the men to return.
And this is where feminism and the men's rights movement begin to part ideological ways.
The commonly accepted consequence of these roles is that women came out oppressed. They were not allowed to work, not given the vote, treated like property moving from father to husband and so on. Men held the power.
Well, the MRM has this to say: that is only half the story. Men were oppressed too.
Here's how it works. When we look at 'men' within the Patriarchy, we very often place all men together. 'Men' had power. 'Men' had the vote. 'Men' ruled everything. This is true, and cannot be argued with – depending on how you are using the word 'men'.
The simple and inescapable truth is that the vast, vast majority of men did not have any power. They did not have the vote. They did not have choice in their lives. They were ruled over by those same few men who ruled over women, and were not given any special privilege for being male. In fact, the lives they were forced into by their gender role could easily be considered a lot worse. Forced military conscription. Back-breaking, dangerous, labour-intensive jobs in mines, fields and factories, jobs which even if they did not kill you directly, would massively reduce your life expectancy. Being removed from your family the majority of the day, and having no choice in the matter: if you didn't go work, you would all starve, or you would be imprisoned for debt. This was the lot of the common man, one which seems to be often forgotten by those who will quickly and loudly shout “Patriarchy!” as an excuse or reason for some pretty unpleasant attitudes and behaviours. 'Men' did not hold power. A very few men did, and wielded it universally.
The big one that people like to pull out all the time is suffrage. Women didn't have the right to vote in the same way men did. Well, yes, this is true. But it is a difficult issue to talk about, and people will tend to talk about it in generalisations – I've even spoken to a few people who were under the impression that ALL men had the vote since, well, pretty much forever. However, this was not the case. The voting franchise was male, yes, but also incredibly exclusive, pertaining to land, class, property and so forth. Universal suffrage for men aged 21 and above in the UK was achieved in 1918.
You may recognise that date in relation to suffrage for a different reason: this was the same year that propertied women over the age of 30 were granted the vote. Ten years later universal suffrage for all women aged 21 and above was achieved.
Ten years difference, from when the common man was granted the vote, to when the common woman was. Yes, before that women did not have the vote, but then neither did most men. Voting up until then was a class and property issue, not a gender one. I am not going to claim that the issue of the vote is not one to remember at all, and yes there was that ten year disparity, but I think it is important that we keep in mind quite how complex it is in comparison to the 'men had vote, women did not' statements we hear repeated without thought. 'Men' did not – they were stuck doing what they had to do, without choice, as their gender role dictated.
So having made a point in my introduction of not using history as an excuse for actions in the present, why have I just gone through that? Because the history of the Patriarchy is far more complicated than we commonly make it out to be, and it is a result of gender roles.
Then things began to change. Feminism has done a marvellous job of deconstructing the female gender role. Women no longer have to follow their traditional gender role if they don't wish to. If they do, they can, but the choices they have laid before them in the western world are manifold, and are essentially only limited by what they want to do. Whatever choices a woman makes in her life (save those that are illegal, of course), they are choices that will generally be accepted by society at large – and rightly so. It is, after all, her choice.
Men, on the other hand, are still expected to follow their traditional gender role to the letter. We have to be protectors and providers, and if not, we are deemed weak, losers, deadbeat, worthless. Men in the US still have to sign up to the draft, facing a $250,000 penalty and 5 years in Federal Prison if they fail to do so. Stay-at-home dads, whilst becoming more acceptable, are still looked upon oddly by a great many people (I have read many accounts of fathers being shunned by all the mothers waiting on the playground for their kids to come out of school). We are still expected to follow the codes of chivalry; codes which, when thought about, reduce women to the level of a child in their perceived weakness.
And so here I find myself at a crossroads, wondering which way to go. You see, that last paragraph may make it sound like I don't want to work, that I'm just whining that I can't get away without doing it. It may sound like I just don't want to do things for other people – particularly women. Neither of these are true. I just think it's about time the male gender role was deconstructed in the same way the female has been. In a world that is changing rapidly, we seem to be standing still, watching it all fly by and leave us behind with a confused look on our collective face. And in particular, I am struck by a thought: chivalry (that is, the act of doing something for a woman, possibly to your own detriment, specifically because she is female) is surely antithetical to the idea of female emancipation and equality, isn't it? So what to do?
Well, I don't have the answers, and I'd love to hear other people's thoughts. As for myself, I'm wondering if it's time to start exercising true equality in inter-gender discourse (no doubt a notion which will crop up again and again) – not doing something for a woman specifically because she is a woman and I 'should', but because I believe it is the right thing to do. And sometimes, perhaps that right thing may be to not automatically do something for her. As I said in the comment I left on the aforementioned post:
“Seems to be that, if women are not going to act in a traditional gender role, there’s no reason that I should – and to do so would be limiting myself. The thinking process I’m going through on my day-to-day life in these interactions is ‘if she were a he, would I be doing this?’.”
I'm sure this idea is going to ruffle a few people's feathers, and if it does, please do let me know, and explain why.
Thanks for reading!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)