What Makes a (gentle) Man?

I get sent a lot of bizarre emails telling me the results of surveys I have no interest in - you know the kind of thing - 'French women chew more gum that Balinese women!', 'American men have more bumps on their toes than Italian men!'. However, the latest email I received today did give me a little pause for thought. It was entitled "World's Best Gentlemen Revealed!" (spoiler - it was Japanese men) so I thought, OK, let's see what their definition of 'gentleman' actually is. These were the ten questions that the 'survey' had used as its criteria (when pissing yourself laughing at the second one, remember this survey was actually done by a company that makes - wait for it - BLACK SOCKS):

• Do you dress modestly?
• Do you shun white socks in public?
• Do you show patience if made to wait?
• Do you avoid swearing in public?
• Do you have clean fingernails?
• Do you cook dinner?
• Do you hold open doors for others?
• Do you drive safely and responsibly?
• Do you give up your seat on public transport? 
• Do you say please and thank you?

It seems that to be a  modern 'gentleman', you need to combine old-fashioned chivalrous behaviour (holding doors, giving up your seat) with 'new man' behaviour (cooking dinner), and throw in some simple basic good manners for measure (patience, personal hygiene, courtesy). Oh, and if your socks make you look like Michael Jackson, you're doing it wrong, but let's leave that to one side for a moment. What this made me think about was the varying definitions of how to 'be a man' and 'be a gentleman', and the accompanying fierce debates. Earlier this year I wrote about how concepts of 'chivalry' still get conflated with women wanting special treatment, and are used to accuse feminists of hypocrisy, the argument being loosely 'You want equality, well then no more holding doors for YOU, sista!'. I've also written about how 'being a man' is a concept fraught with implications that masculinity must always entail being dominant, an oppressive notion to men who choose to eschew stereotypically aggressive, alpha-male behaviour. What makes a 'man' or a 'gentleman' is something I spend a fair amount of time thinking about, contrary to the stereotype that feminism means always privileging women's issues, to the exclusion of the opposite sex.

 

However, what today's email made me think most of all, was how definitions of being a 'gentleman' manage to be at once both dependent on the opposite sex, yet also removed from it. Nowhere in the above questions is there any mention of women, yet we assume that women are implicitly included as the person for whom the gentleman is cooking dinner, holding the door and giving up their seat on public transport. Which is all very nice, but to me are largely artificial gestures, not to mention things that all people, of all gender identities, can do for each other as a matter of simple niceness. If I was going to have a set of questions designed to determine a real 'gentleman', they would be much more explicitly related to how a man treats the opposite sex, because I do think that is a great litmus test of a man's true nature, intentions and integrity. Just like I believe you can measure how truly 'civilised' a country is by how it treats its women, minorities and most vulnerable, I think you can also measure how truly honourable a man is by how he interacts with women (NB, for these purposes I'm looking at heterosexual men - although gay men are obviously not excluded from the obligation to treat women well, their interactions with women take place under a very different set of constraints and expectations). So, my questions would go something like this...

 

- Do you think that being nice to a woman means you deserve sexual contact from her?

- Do you tell, encourage others to tell, or laugh at misogynistic jokes?

- Do you witness other men behaving in sexist ways and do nothing about it?

- If you offered to walk a woman home and she refused, would you still persist?

- Do you judge women for their sexual behaviour more harshly than men?

- Do you believe that because women don't say what they really want, it's OK to assume?

- Do you say you believe in equality while secretly believing you are superior to women?

 

There are, of course, plenty of others I could add, including ones so blunt that I don't think they'd ever get an honest answer ('Ever hit a woman? Raped a woman?' for a start). But the blunt ones are almost too easy, because of course every guy who considers himself 'good' would answer with spluttering outrage 'Of course I haven't!!'. And fair enough, no one likes to be called a rapist if they aren't one. But that alone still doesn't make you a gentleman. You may consider yourself 'one of the good guys', who says and does all the right things. You don't rape, you don't hit, you believe in theory that women have the right to be mechanics and pilots and soldiers and get equal pay and not be discriminated against etck etck.  But are you sure that underneath all the right-on proclamations, you don't secretly harbour sexist convictions? Have you never complained about being 'friend-zoned' by some uppity woman who refused to reward your friendship with sex? Never 'liked' a sexist joke on Facebook? Stood by while your friends cat-called some poor female just trying to walk home? Condemned a woman for being dressed scruffily/bizarrely/revealingly? Or perpetuated myths that all women are two-faced/irrational/deceitful, simply because one woman you've encountered may have turned out to be this way?

 

Because I'd rather have the door slam shut in my face from a guy who answers 'yes' to any of my criteria questions, than endure any amounts of 'chivalrous' behaviour from a person who secretly believes women are weak, stupid, deserving of mistreatment and violence and exist only for his sexual gratification. And I suspect that there are a fair few guys out there who do exactly that, while masquerading as 'gentlemen'. If you don't swear in public, keep your fingernails clean, don't drive like an arsehole and are keen to erode the notion that women belong in the kitchen by whipping out your oven gloves, then that's all very nice. But I'd rather have the dude in white socks who knows that being a gentleman is about actions, not appearances, than the black-socked dude who thinks that looking the part earns him privileges over a sex he privately believes is inferior. 

Boys on Film: Movies, Masculinity and The Hunger Games

*** SPOILER ALERT - If you are one of the remaining folks who hasn't seen The Hunger Games and still wants to, do not read on! ***

When one of my co-workers took some cheques to the bank to deposit in our company's account, the clerk serving her noticed our company name (the Feminist Majority Foundation, the charity that owns Ms. Magazine) and asked the following, oh-so-enlightened question:

"Do you guys all hate men?"

My colleague politely responded no. But that's what feminism has come to mean in so many minds. Pro-woman must equal anti-man, especially if you're one of those charming Men's Rights Activists (MRAs). This was a criticism levelled at the fantastic film Thelma & Louise, as not only did it (gasp!) focus on two female leads and put men on the sideline, but it highlighted the fact that (shocker!) some men do some terrible things. Not all men - Jimmy, played by Michael Madsen, is a loyal and caring boyfriend to Louise. Hal, played by Harvey Keitel, tries his hardest to prevent the two protagonists becoming victims of the law that is meant to protect them. And yes, there are three male characters who do shitty things - Harlan, the bar-room charmer who turns out to be a violent rapist, J.D., the buff cowboy who gives Thelma her first 'proper lay' but then robs her, and the truck driver who sexually harasses our ladies and gets his comeuppance. And guess what - there are plenty of real-life men who do those things and are never brought to justice, but having this highlighted in a film was clearly too much for some, and they either demeaned the film by labelling it a 'chick flick', or simply accused it of promoting man-hating - or at least a negative picture of masculinity.

However, masculinity can be extremely negative, let's not deny it. This is not the same as saying men are bad - it's saying that the macho stereotype that is demanded of them definitely is. Being violent, aggressive, arrogant, domineering, ruthless, selfish and positioning oneself as superior to the opposite sex are precisely the characteristics that harm our planet and its people every single day. So what about alternative models of masculinity?

Well, I started thinking about this when I finally caught up with the rest of the Western world on Saturday and went to see The Hunger Games. Yes, I realise I'm a little late to the party, but the phenomenon took a while to filter through to this non-American, and I also wanted to be a purist and read the book first. When I finally saw the film, what came through to me was not just the incredibly positive representation of a female as strong, intelligent, self-sufficient and able to protect and provide for others, but the contrasting depictions of men. Katniss's father is entirely absent from her family, leaving her to take over as head of the family, and provide for her mother and sister. Her friendship with Gale is an equal partnership based on practicality and mutual respect, so far devoid of romance. It is Gale who is left behind to look after Katniss's family while she is tasked with representing her District - another inversion of the 'women belong in the domestic sphere whilst men go out in the world and do Important Things' trope.

Haymitch, Katniss's only mentor, is a drunken shell of a man whose life has been forever tainted by his experience in the Hunger Games. Although he attempts to impose discipline on Katniss and make her 'likeable' for the cameras, he is rarely successful in getting her to toe the line, reminding me a little of the relationship between Giles and Buffy, where Giles' timid attempts to play the patriarch was always scathingly blown out of the water by the headstrong, attitude-laden Buffy. Haymitch does end up with affection for his charge, perhaps realising that her unwillingness to play the passive female is what may actually lead to her survival in the Games.

Then there's Cinna - ah, after Lenny Kravitz gave a face to Katniss's one unconditional friend in the Capitol, who doesn't love Cinna? He's beautiful, gentle, and he genuinely cares about our heroine. Although he is limited in his ability to help her, his moral and emotional support is depicted as invaluable, both in the book and the film. Cinna's sexuality is ambiguous - his soft voice and physical mannerisms, plus the stereotype of men who work in fashion being mostly homosexual, could imply his character is meant to be gay. However, his 'effeminate' characteristics could also simply be a side-effect of living in a future where everyone, male and female, is insanely groomed, appearance-obsessed, and make-up has become de rigeur for both sexes (interestingly, Cinna always wears black unlike the other Capitol characters who are drowning in colour, perhaps showing that he has not fully surrendered to their fashion fascism). Cinna also helps Katniss in both traditionally 'feminine' and 'masculine' ways - his fashion know-how gives her visual appeal to the crowd through her costume (and importantly, without sexualising or objectifying her), but he also provides strength and comfort when she is consumed with terror at entering the arena.

Then there is Katniss's 'team-mate' in the Games - Peeta. Unlike the other males in the game, and unlike Katniss herself, Peeta is uncompetitive and fairly resigned to dying in the Games. Most of the evidence points to Peeta's total lack of aggression - when other males mock him during training, it is Katniss who has to persuade him to make a show of strength because 'those guys are looking at you like you're a meal'. It is Katniss who objects to being made to 'look weak' when Peeta admits his romantic feelings for her on TV, inverting the stereotype that love and romance are 'for girls', and his submission to Katniss's rage when she slams him up against a wall is distinctly un-Alpha-male. Once in the arena, Peeta appears to betray Katniss by teaming up with a group who are hunting her, but it becomes apparent that this is a tactical move to infiltrate and placate the enemy. When he is seriously wounded, it is she who protects him and nurses him back to health. The scene where she applies healing balm to his wound simmers with chemistry, and for me it was partly because of Peeta's vulnerability and willingness to defer to Katniss.

Peeta's lack of competitive/aggressive behaviour is sharply contrasted with that of Cato, the stereotypical 'Alpha male', who is depicted a little more than a brute, a mindless killing machine bent on violence and domination. The audience is meant to dislike him - he is the enemy because he kills without discrimination, and often seems to take pleasure in murder. His lack of moral code is what makes him objectionable, in direct opposition to Katniss, who only kills in self-defence or defence of another (such as Rue). Cato is definitely not meant to be admired, and indeed there seems to be a warning implicit in his last scene, where we see him bloodied and borderline-hysterical, finally aware of the futility of the Games - he laughs bitterly "I'm dead anyway" as he holds Peeta in a headlock and taunts Katniss that if she kills him, he will take Peeta with him. Cato appears to have been driven to distraction by the deliberate viciousness of the Capitol; they have encouraged and glorified his extreme machismo then abandoned him. I think there are some possible parallels here with the way men are destroyed by the exploitation of their need for masculine glory - army recruitment being a major example that springs to mind.

In contrast, Peeta has never wanted to play the macho game, and is calm in his practicality when the rules are changed and he immediately surrenders, telling Katniss to kill him because 'one of us should go home'. I can see how Peeta's passivity could be read as a negative indictment that feminism has 'emasculated' men, that his lack of aggression, willingness to play second fiddle to Katniss and defer to her expertise are all examples of the unattractive, 'feminised' man that the women's movement is accused of creating. Interesting that the qualities that were supposed to make women so attractive to men - being gentle, non-aggressive, unthreatening and letting others take the glory -is suddenly supposed to become so unattractive when embodied in a man. However, the swathes of female admirers joining 'Team Peeta' imply otherwise. A man comfortable enough with himself not to be constantly asserting himself via macho behaviour can be very attractive, as the army of Peeta fans will attest. Peeta supports and respects the girl he loves - many of us would agree there's nothing sexier. When compared with Cato's hackneyed blustering and frat-boy posturing, it's pretty easy to say who's a more attractive picture of masculinity.

What makes the 'good' male characters in The Hunger Games is loyalty. Even Thresh is afforded some audience sympathy when he spares Katniss because she protected Rue, whilst taking revenge on Clove, who gloats over Rue's death. His loyalty to his fellow tribute and the girl who protected her contrasts with his contempt for the amoral and sadistic Clove. Gale keeps his promise to protect Katniss's family. Cinna's support for Katniss never wavers, before, during or after the Games. And Peeta's loyalty to Katniss is always apparent.

These are visions of masculinity I can get behind. This is the kind of masculinity I want to see more of, both on the screen and off.

Defending women, and feminism, has never been an easy job - just ask any woman who has ever tried it. But for the men who want to get on board and support the fight for equality that their girlfriends, wives, sisters, daughters, mothers and friends participate in daily, there are also obstacles - perhaps different to the ones women face, but equally ugly. The men I've dated have all been subject to 'consciousness-raising' as I insisted that they consider their privilege, how it made them blind to the sexism around them, and start speaking out against it. My first boyfriend, a gentle, laid-back guy with a great sense of humor, took this seriously and started confronting his (sadly often misogynistic and moronic) roommates about their sexism. He was unpleasantly surprised to find that they didn't immediately express contrition and agree to mend their misogynistic ways.

Instead, they mocked, jeered and attacked him, implying he was pussy-whipped, and asking him 'Have you tasted your period yet?' (I guess that shows they had at least heard of The Female Eunuch and Germaine Greer's famous words on menstrual fluid, but that was little consolation). He got little sympathy from me - it's a tough job which never stops, I told him, and you don't get a medal just because you got one day's worth of the crap when women endure a lifetime's worth of it. To his credit, he kept confronting his housemates. They remained unreceptive. When he and I underwent a brief separation, one of them asked "Does that mean it's OK to make rape jokes now?", implying that the only reason a man would take other men to task for misogyny was because his militant girlfriend was standing over him and forcing him to do so, otherwise he wouldn't have cared. It made me angry that he ever gave these guys the time of day, let alone became their friend and housemate, but I appreciate what he did in trying to re-educate himself and them.

I was reminded of this recently when watching the excellent 'Shit Men Say to Men Who Say Shit To Women', which is both a witty response to the trend of 'Shit [X Group] Says' on Twitter and Youtube, and more importantly, a male response to street harassment. It's a heartening reminder that there are men out there who not only object to sexism, but will confront other men about their sexist behaviour. Because Lord knows highlighting sexism is never going to be enough. Men need to be taken to task for street harassment (and many other crimes against women), and unfortunately because the perpertrators are already exhibiting contempt for women, the likelihood that they'll take notice of a woman objecting to their behaviour is not high. Whereas being judged by your peer group is something that can have a powerful impact. Men committing street harassment are doing so relying on their privilege as men to own street space, intimidate women, and not have their actions questioned by other men. So, the key to dismantling this assumed privilege starts with men doing exactly that - confronting their counterparts who indulge in shitty behaviour.

But, as I reminded that old boyfriend of mine, it's not going to be easy. Just read the comments below the video and amongst many energised, positive and encouraging comments, you'll see the men in the video referred to as 'gay', 'bunch of faggots', 'emasculated', and accused of 'begging like children'. And that's just the comments that weren't removed for being too offensive, so you can imagine what those contained. I'm glad to say these comments are far outweighed by plenty of sensible individuals, who highlight the haters' muddled thinking perfectly - "How is standing up for women, who straight men are attracted to, a "homosexual" thing?" ponders one. "So then standing up for the rights of others, (as well as what you your self believe in) is emasculating? Hm. That's new to me," says another, and I want to stand up and cheer to see people finally talking sense. What the critical commenters have revealed is their bizarre, confused conception of 'masculinity' and what it should look like. Being A Man, to these people, entails objectifying women, intimidating them, shouting them down and making them feel ashamed to be in a public space. This = strength, and strength = masculinity, to these charming folk. Take away men's strength, and oh shit! They become 'gay', 'effeminate', 'emasculated', all because those goddamn feminists brainwashed them.

The assumption these people are making is that a) no man could care about women's rights unless he has been 'brainwashed' and that b) true manliness is rooted in violence, aggression and constantly asserting yourself as opposite to and superior than any group who doesn't behave like you (women, gays, transgender folk, children, minorities). It's the basis that the YouTube commenters who seem so offended by a group of men criticising male behaviour, are proceeding upon, and it's sure as hell the basis my ex-boyfriend's housemates were proceeding on when they turned on him for daring to challenge their happily established, misogynistic status quo. And it paints a grotesque picture of the 'masculinity' that many men (and some women) still seem to be clinging to. It takes bravery on the part of men to make a video like the one above, knowing that the most angry response will be from other men. Not more courage than it takes women to stand up to sexism, but a different type. Challenging the dominant group from within means lowering your shield, putting your head above the parapet, and opening yourself up to attack.

So props to the men who made the video, all those who watch it and consider its message, those who support it, and those who answer back to the haters. Here's some more pro-feminist male activists who make us feel like we're not alone in the fight:

Ben Atherton-Zamen

Michael Kimmel

Jackson Katz

Men Can Stop Rape

Must Bol, Founders of GotStaredAt

Men who support feminism don't automatically deserve special treatment for doing what every man should be doing anyway, but they do deserve a special mention for doing what too many men are failing to do every day.