TV can make you think? Whoa…

I haven’t really been all that interested in this year’s season of Survivor: Gabon, but apparently there has been this “bromance” that has gained a significant amount of blog attention over the past few months.  During the course of the show, castmates Marcus and Charlie had become close friends.  The show had been edited to show Charlie, a self-identified gay man as having  a crush on Marcus, a self-identified straight contestant.  What’s abnormal about this you may ask?  Well, the fact that I and others have to question their relationship is incredibly indicative of how US culture defines masculinity and sexuality. 

Consider these questions:

          1. Why do we assume that Charlie, a gay man, must have a crush on Marcus because they are friends? 

Maybe because on some level we, as a culture, believe that gay men are attracted to any socially desirable male (i.e. Marcus, an attractive doctor).

          2. Why have Survivor’s producers allowed the show to be edited to reflect this one-way crush? 

I have every confidence that producers are most keenly interested in gaining as many viewers as possible, so what do they do?  The play both ends of the fence; the please gay fans by hyping up this relationship all they while maintaining the self-image of straight people who believe they are not homophobic.  They manage a male-male relationship the only way they expect us to see it (one gay male crushing on another straight man).

          3. Why do we then question Marcus’ “straight-ness” as a result of his affectionate behavior toward Charlie?

Because overall we believe that men must not show affection, especially not to one another.  Women are expected to be affectionate and caring while men are seen as less “manly” if they show affection towards another person, especially another man.  Think about how surprised you are to see  men showing affection to their partners or family members (and friends);  why is that so “rare” and special?  Think about it.

          4.  Why has the term “bromance” inserted itself into our everyday pop-culture references?

Simply put, we can’t handle too men being in any sort of ”relationship,” so we must create unique terminology that reflects something atypical.  Think about it, do we have an equivalent term for friendships between women?  A sis-mance?

All this really comes about from my reading an interview of Marcus, from Survivor: Gabon, and his discussion of the way the show was edited, his place in the game, and his relationship with Charlie.  Additionally, I always find it interesting to read the comments on youtube, and this clip of Marcus & Charlie received some particularly interesting reactions.  Read that interview here.  Oh, and to add insult to injury, Brody Jenner (who is a celebrity for no apparent reason) has an upcoming show on MTV titled “Bromance” where he seeks out a new bff just like Paris Hilton did.  One can only hope that his show brings up some intelligent examination of gender identity, yet I still manage to have little faith.

Masculinity as the abscence of Femininity

To often I end up asking myself what is masculinity? What does it mean to be a man? Most of the times when I am forced to ask myself these questions it is because of the multitude of images that flood us me as a consumer of television and media.

Earlier yesterday I was watching television when a commercial for a body mist product came on and I stopped to think about the actual physical process of putting on the body mist, and I thought it’s just that, it’s an addition. For a woman to smell “womanly” or “feminine,” she must add to herself. Does this notion not imply that without this intervention from commercial America that their consumers would simply be inadequately prepared to smell and act feminine? Not only does this idea apply to this notion of body mist, but the effects are felt throughout most, if not all, products determined to change and alter our perception of what is appropriately feminine. In order to be considered womanly, one must add slightly seductive scents, buy clothing that mostly enhances curves, that are either God-given or acquired, or even add extensions to enhance the fullness and lusciousness of one’s hair.

It does seem pretty radical that these very vast, philosophical questions can be derived from a simple television ad and I’m certain that this type of analysis is not what the executives of this company had intended, however we can be certain to note how the images in the media reflect those deep held beliefs about ourselves and what we see as appropriate.

Once I allowed myself to delve into the implications for the feminine ideal, I began to think about its impact on men, and realized it reflects that interconnectedness that is inherent in all people with various expressions of gender.  The issue of femininity affects us all.

What effect may this have on men and their own gender expression? If, according to the rationale listed here, we are to believe that the gender expression of the feminine identity is best expressed through the addition of certain items and men should not aim to be seen as stereotypically feminine, then is it safe to say that the ideas of masculinity are built upon the framework of absence of what is feminine instead of an addition, or an inclusion of positive and responsible characteristics?

Society tells men they are to be strong, decisive providers, all of which are counter to the traditionally feminine traits, thus isn’t being masculine the absence of what is considered feminine? This notion would lead us believe that men are themselves the keepers of what is acceptable and what is not. To be a man, to fit into the stereotypical box, one must not possess those characteristics that are deemed feminine. Does this idea set us up to believe that to be masculine, that some sort of void must exist? There must be that absence of what is feminine for men to be considered masculine.

This is a very painful and distorted way of thinking which we desperately need to change. We are doing none of ourselves service here; not only are we deprecating on what it means to be a woman, but we are also looking at our ideal man as someone who is devoid of things considered rational and emotional. We all deserve better; we all deserve the chance and the right to express ourselves and our gender as we see fit and if we begin to challenge these ideas then maybe we can commence to see our men as healthy, holistic beings and begin to eradicate and repair the damage that has been done to the gender expression of women.