Carly Jensen Response to Gentleman or Beast?

Initially reading Susan Bordo’s article Gentleman or Beast? I felt her argument was extremely one sided.  However as I read further and began to understand what she called the “double-bind of masculinity” I felt that she was pinpointing some of the negative aspects of the society of gender. The double-bind argument is similar to that of a catch-22, men are supposed to be either “gentleman” or “beasts” and completely associating with either category can be detrimental to a man’s reputation as well as forever dictate how people perceive him. Bordo argues that men are put into a lose-lose situation, which is dictated by the constant negative images of men in the media and society. The so-called double bind reminds me of what Kimmel was arguing in the chapters we read from Guyland, he argues that it is a whole society of men that influences a male’s actions and going against the code is risky. Bordo takes this argument further and looks at the negative perceptions of male who follows the code and lives up to expectations of Guyland.

In comparing the “Beast” to the “gentleman” Bordo investigates why men are put into the two categories and how this contributes to their role in society. She argues that it is the media, society’s expectations, as well as the female culture that encourages the beast image. I definitely see this especially in today’s pop culture. Actors who are extremely masculine and almost beastly are cast because directors know that these men will make their movie a hit. Recently I went to see The Vow, which was a awful movie. I think the only reason that Channing Tatum was cast, was for his beast like appearance and not for his acting. As Bordo puts it “The primitive male animal – if we are honest with ourselves- turns a girl on” (Bordo, 236). The movie Tough Guise also addressed this attraction to the hyper-masculine male image through comparing the character of James Bond. Over the years the actor who portrays the James Bond character has transformed from a dapper Sean Connery to a beefed up Daniel Craig. Average men feel the need to be emulate the beast like image of such actors. However as Bordo pointed out this comes with drawbacks. Such images of hyper-masculine aggressive males have instilled fear and assumptions in females, especially teenage girls. The story about the boy who had an extremely uncomfortable first date highlights the “bind” that males are put into. This teenager was caught between following the guycode and acting like a man. He was overcome with fear that any aggressive move would offend and as he put it; “she’d hit me with a sexual harassment suit” (241).  Why he would fear such an action from a simple goodnight kiss identifies just how conflicted males are. One of my best friends is tall and athletic who for his entire high school career walked on eggshells because people assumed he was a “beast”, because of how he looked and acted on the field or in the pool. Despite being the opposite of how he was perceived he was always self-conscious of his animal like repetition. He was a perfect example of both being a beast and gentleman and the balance that Bordo argues is essential to the male persona.

Brodo sees the answer to the “double bind” is finding a balance. Ultimately she makes a valid argument, but it is hard to find such a balance especially if Kimmel’s “guy code” is in place.  Men today are expected to fit into a constrictive box that is dictated by numerous rules and expectations. How are men supposed to evolve into the perfect balance of hyper-masculinity and a sensitive gentleman at the same time? While this is probably possible and I am sure many men have found such a balance I question if these men are really being themselves? For instance Channing Tatum’s character was supposed to be a loveable sensitive beast like husband in The Vow but his character was unrealistic and unbelievable. Bordo accurately identifies the situation of a male in society and the contradictory expectations they must navigate.