In middle school I remember having to spend every Wednesday recess period sitting through excruciatingly awkward and tedious “girl-chats”. These so called “chats” were implemented by the Head of School and the teachers as a way for middle school girls learn to deal with the constant pressures associated with our adolescence and to discuss how to embrace what made us each “special”. However after reading Kimmel’s “Bros Before Hos”: The Guy Code, I am now less perturbed by fact that I had to sit through these talks, than the fact that while I was sitting in the class room the boys in my school were running around outside being “boys”.
Both Kimmel’s book and the article Boys and Men in Families draw attention to the world of masculinity and the modern day pressure on males to be “men”. Today men must conform to a code that determines their worth as a man. Conforming to the code is more important that anything else in the eyes of most male adolescents. As Kimmel puts it, “ The unifying emotional subtext of all these aphorism (the Guy Code) involves never showing emotions or admitting to weakness.” Men are not supposed to ask for directions, cry at movies, lose at anything, or act feminine in any way. Boys and Men in Families reiterates this unwritten code: that being masculine is just being anything but feminine. I find this definition of being a man much more restrictive than any definition of being a girl in society today.
Girls have to deal with the media and the image of a perfect person, but personally I have never felt an obligation to conform to such expectations. As a child I played sports, hated losing, wore shorts, and most importantly did not try to be either a girly girl or a tomboy. High School was a period of constant pressure from my peers to conform to a specific “girly image”. Kimmel however points out a much more constrictive code for males that was implemented not only by peer instead by a whole society. In deciding to not wear makeup I never felt that my femininity was in question, I was never hazed or forced into a situations where I could not escape. In comparison if a guy goes against code their masculinity is on the line and that is something they could not survive without. This code is something that is foreign to me coming from a family of predominantly females. However I have witnessed the early pressure put upon boys to grow up to become a “man”. My younger and only male cousin used to love princesses and play dress up now, he takes strides to distance himself from the girls. He assumes all the “son” responsibility in the family and has a unique relationship with my father as well as other male members of the family. I have noticed just how much pressure is put on him to be the epitome of masculinity. However I question to what extent he controls his actions and how much they are a product of the “code” and others expectations?
Kimmel, Adams, and Coltrane all comment on the fact that to become a male one must distance themselves form the overprotective nature of there mothers. This is something that disturbs me. Adams and Coltrane argue that a way to become a man is to “reject” their mothers. My cousin is only ten and already bashes girly things and snubs his mother’s attention. Despite having sympathy for males who have to abide by the guy code, I find it difficult understand how one gender relies on “rejecting” the other. What if mothers treated their sons the same way that Kimmel assumes fathers do? Would females still be hurt their son’s masculinity? I also find the “culture of silence” interesting. What would happen if more of behavior was called out and prevented? Is the culture of silence the backbone to the guy code? Everything comes back to my middle school experience, why did the administration not think that middle school boys needed a “guy chat” as well? Ultimately I think that society encourages the guy code and allows for horrendous acts of masculinity to continue.
Comment by Emily Hunter: I like Carlisle’s point that it is less restrictive to be a girl than to be a boy. I know that I have had a similar experience to Carlisle in that I always took an interest in athletics, wore shorts, and didn’t pay much attention to my appearance. When I was younger I was not yet aware of the male gaze and therefore had the opportunity to be oblivious to the gender pressures placed on women later in life. Men on the other hand are born into the male gaze and feel the pressure to fulfill their gender role starting at an extremely young age. While women have the opportunity to remove themselves from the male gaze and to grow as individuals, men do not and must spend their lives putting on an unrealistic performance of manhood.
ReplyDeleteJohn Gallagher comment
ReplyDelete"Adams and Coltrane argue that a way to become a man is to “reject” their mothers." I like how Carlisle incorporates this into her response. It shouldn't be respectable to reject the other gender, and I don't think it is as much this way as the piece makes it out to be. You bring up a good point when asking whether a boy would be affected if his mother treated him the way Kimmel's 'father' would. I grew up playing sports with boys who's mothers did exactly this. My mother was never this way, but I would carpool with other kids when I was younger and listen to their mothers talk to them about being tougher and encouraging aggression after games and practices. These kids were more the type that use these derogatory words, and live by the "man code." (At least growing up that was the case)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteloved Emily's anecdote about "girl chats" and I think it illustrates so much of what Kimmel is talking about. Emily asks why the administration didn't think boys needed "guy chats" and Kimmel really provides the answer. Men are supposed to reject the emotional support that "girl chats" are about or rather are supposed to act like they don't need it at all. As Guyland ultimately shows, boys clearly would benefit from a "guy chat".
Delete- Brooke Dinsmore