Thursday, April 8th, 2010
35

The Men's Room: Man v. Tool Academy

JACOB THE MANThis season's winner of Tool Academy, a reality show on VH1 in which awful mostly-male people are tricked into going to couples' therapy in order to make them better mostly-boyfriends, was an aspiring professional wrestler named Jacob, or "J.T. Extreme." In the final episode, we were treated to an apparently sincere ceremony in which Jacob sacrificed, as a sign of his romantic contrition, his leopard-print leotard and banana hammock on a fire, causing an entire nation to mentally smell the worst smell anyone has ever smelled. (I imagined a toaster which has been turned on, smeared with Icy Hot, and stuffed with an large chunk of runny Camembert. What did you imagine?) To say he was the "winner" is to say that he was judged, by the show, to have been the most successful at becoming a better boyfriend. From a certain perspective, this was confusing!

His primary opponent, Angelo, had a genuine breakthrough and also seemed to not hate his girlfriend–and also, honestly, was dim enough to be capable of undergoing a meaningful psychological transformation on a reality show–while Jacob actually (seriously!) performed a "big boot" to a flatscreen TV in the final therapy session, i.e., the one in which the therapist judged him to not be the kind of person who wants to be a professional wrestler anymore.

But in the context of the show's overall critical project, it makes total sense. Tool Academy does not want men to actually change. They just want men to realize that they need to convincingly perform, for their girlfriends, the embodiment of an certain vision of masculinity. And this vision of the New Masculinity (I know, ugh) is the best way around one of the most persistent I-am-typing-this-on-my-laptop-while-lying-in-bed ladyproblems: how do I choose between my family and my career? (Cue sassy vibraphone music!)

O RLY

Despite our differences, I suspect most of us can agree on certain things. Like: relationships should be equal partnerships, whatever that means. One thing it means, to me, is that whichever member of the relationship has more capacity to work more at any given point can work more, while the other person will do more domestic lifting, with the assumption that both will help out in each area while also having rich and fulfilling lives as much as that is possible, but both will also do some heavy-duty lifting in their assigned area. Which is a negotiation, sure, and not easy. But if we all assumed this, it might make things better? So like, women could get paid the same as men, since they would be assumed to be able to work as many hours as consistently as men, and it would clamp down a little on the "job or baby?" dilemma that American maternity leave laws seem to induce, since a workplace-oriented woman could count on her husband to do the grunt work of raising the kid(s). And then that would be nice, because men would be seen to be equal parents with women, and maybe your modern woman could worry a little less about being the Perfect Mother and all. Sounds nice, no?

But in practice…well! Even if we agree with the "equal partnership" idea, a lot of guys have a hard time being cool with a partner who makes more than them, or is more successful than them, or is smarter than them. I understand this! It was recently pointed out to me that I am bothered by the fact that I am a 30-year-old dude and only making a grad student's salary, that I feel this is shameful somehow, whereas many women I know would be totally cool with it. And this impulse to want to be doing better than your partner in a certain area wouldn't be so bad if both people in the relationship shared it, because they each would be ambitious and you would have areas where each excelled and everyone could be content.

But the unavoidable corollary of "I don't want to date a woman who makes more than me" is "the woman I date can't want to make more than me." They can certainly be better at some things, but not the things that, let's be honest here, society as a whole actually values, like money and fame and power. And even guys who are smart, conscious dudes, guys who should know better-they think this too! Why would they think that? Well, masculinity has a secret kind of allure, a tendency to whisper in your ear that thinking is for pussies. Masculinity is all about authenticity and action: ridin' horses, shootin' bad guys, lifting things, strong but silent. Authenticity is both a key value of masculinity and its justification-circular reasoning, sure ("my idea about being a man is authentic because I am a man and men are authentic"), but therefore real hard to argue rationally against. But really, of course, it's gender itself that's inauthentic. It's all made up!

The problematic thing here is that gender roles, for all of their fucked-up-ness, have an undeniable appeal. There's something pleasing about prettying yourself up and going out on the town, something enjoyable about smoking a cigar and wearing a suit and drinking Scotch in a room full of people also smoking cigars and wearing suits and drinking Scotch and talking about how damn important they are. And those pleasures are theoretically open to either gender. (See: Leslie Knope.) But again, in practice it often doesn't seem like that.

The roles our accursed genitals have stuck us with can feel restrictive. In these sorts of discussions, dudes often end up saying something like this: Women want us to be Sensitive Guys, but also Real Men! This is a paradox! We are good at being Sensitive Guys but where are the opportunities for being Real Men? And they have a point, kind of. Both genders' inherent notion of masculinity is based on an outdated model of American society, and while it's reasonable that you do not want your male partner to be a damned pussy already, the opportunities to demonstrate that non-pussification may seem few. The military draft is gone, there are immigrants to perform many of our mechanical tasks, and who farms? (Lots of people, I know, but stay with me.) These sorts of activities shouldn't be the alpha and omega of masculinity, but they are. Why? Well, masculinity has never been about women: it has always been about how men act around other men. And in a society where all the workers were men, this made a certain amount of sense. But that's not what we have anymore. Thus, we need a New Masculinity-a way for men (or whoever!) to be masculine, to enact the pleasures of that role for themselves and those around them, without being awful people. But what does this look like?

Well, it looks kind of like an Old Spice commercial.

The Old Spice campaign that this commercial is the latest iteration of is absolutely brilliant. Here, masculinity is acknowledged as something impossible and unrealistic: instead of showing an authentic man, we see a man doing literally impossible things, like turning tickets into diamonds. But it also acknowledges the appeal. The specifics are kept intentionally vague ("that thing you like") so we get the message that you don't have to literally be a lumberjack firefighter with a six-pack; you can just gesture at some of these signifiers, as the ladies have gotten adept at doing, and it will be remarkably effective. Try it and see!

So pop culture is starting to construct this idea of the New Masculinity. (And that's where it's going to have to come from, unfortunately–if it's seen as coming from ladies, it won't take, as ladies well know. Sorry we are awful, ladies!) Between Tool Academy, Old Spice, and the critiques of masculinity contained in Mad Men and other TV dramas (Tony Soprano! I mean, come on!), this image is starting to form, even if it is largely unacknowledged.

But just as pop culture is still sending out primarily negative images of women, it's also painting a pretty dire picture of men. According to ads, we are either blithe sex gods (and unattractive badly-dressed sex gods to boot these days, which, UGH) for whom emotional connections with other human beings are a sign of weakness, or borderline retarded fathers/husbands utterly incapable of contributing to the life of their families. Both of which sound kind of awful if you are a healthy, mature person, right? This isn't excusing anything, but it's also not helping.

So maybe let's look to real life instead: our current President. Barack Obama, god bless ‘im, is a man. He is the leader of the free world, he plays basketball, and is really into, like, sports and beer. But at the same time, as we know from the story of his courtship with Michelle, they met when she was his boss, and for a long time, he made less than his wife. Moreover, when he got into power, he was careful to put women in powerful positions-not out of being pussywhipped, but because they were the right people for the job. He knows what he's doing. And most importantly?
BABY-KILLA!You just can't picture John Wayne, or Don Draper, doing that.

But figuring out how that works in practice is–of course, as always–difficult. When you're not in a secure manly-man position like Leader of the Free World, how does this dance look, exactly? I can gesture at it without nailing anything down. Think of masculinity, I would say, as like an uncomfortable dress you wear in public but can slip easily and happily out of when you get home. You should wear it in public, even though it's uncomfortable, because dresses are pretty, and Real Men are appealing. It will do you good, if it looks good on you. But how do you do this without thinking that it's your true self? Masculinity might be like Jacob-the-wrestler's awful leotard: something ridiculous but effective you can discard at a moment's notice if necessary and not have it affect your self-image. Part of the mating dance, part of growing up, but a childish thing, something to put away. Put it in the back of the closet, keep it clean, drag it out every once in a while, because hey, it's nice. But don't confuse it with who you are. Be a man, for chrissake, but don't let it get in the way of your happiness. That would be nice, right? If anyone figures it out, be sure to let me know. It's not that I don't like Tool Academy, but maybe there are better models out there for transitioning from Dude to Man.



Mike Barthel has been a music writer, for Idolator and other places, and is currently the worst. He has a Tumblr.

35 Comments / Post A Comment

the teeth (#380)

Well, of course, yes, probably, but also maybe no?

Tuna Surprise (#573)

So…you never said if you're uncomfortable going out on a date to a nice restaurant and letting the woman pick up the check.

Sure! I'll initially object, but if you're bound and determined, I'll agree and order another bottle of wine.

Tuna Surprise (#573)

Great! Let's meet at Per Se tonight at 8. But you do realize the person picking up the check is entitled to oral sex…right?

Well, I can't make it, by 8, but I'd order the Tuna Surprise for free. (It is a good surprise, right?)

wb (#2,214)

Wow. Is it that easy to get a date to Per Se? And have her pay TOO? I may be a big fan of the New Masculinity.

Tuna Surprise (#573)

@CF: The 'Tuna Surprise' is that I go out with you and act flirtatious and let you come up to my apartment and just when you think you're going to get laid I turn on all the lights and tell you I'd rather just discuss the two decade old power struggle I have with my older sister. Grrr! Why can't she just act like an adult? Everything always has to be about her! What's wrong? Oh. You don't want to talk about this? It's just that she gets under my skin and I don't have anyone I can vent to about this. Thanks for understanding. You're so sweet!

[flashbacks!]

"Women want us to be Sensitive Guys, but also Real Men! This is a paradox! We are good at being Sensitive Guys but where are the opportunities for being Real Men? And they have a point, kind of."

The opportunity is when you are banging the sensitive out of her.

janine (#248)

Letting me use you to warm my hands and feet, which are always cold, and not yelping. That's huge for me, you know. Keep your jacket, just let me shove my hands up the back of your shirt till they're warm.

I think we are married.

Andy Rosenberger (#3,872)

But doesn't this all get back to the whole "confidence is the sexiest thing you can wear" thing. I'm by no means an expert on women, but when they say "real man" I feel like that means confident, secure, and assertive; while "sensitive" means the ability to be comfortable showing/talking about feelings.

Not wanting a woman to make more money is a sign of insecurity; the man is not comfortable with that. Which is fine, and it's understandable, and it's evolutionary, and it's human nature, but its still a flaw.

In my opinion, confidence in ourselves is the manliest attribute we can have. It's also the rarest, yet easiest to see when its there.

petejayhawk (#1,249)

In my opinion, confidence in ourselves is the manliest attribute we can have. It's also the rarest, yet easiest to see when its there.

Replace manliest with womanliest and you really have not made this any less true.

Slava (#216)

I mean… you say that, but 'confidence' doesn't really mean anything. Are you justifiably confident? Are you just cocky? Could there actually be a good reason for lack of confidence? Should you just ignore your doubts and be assertive no matter what?

Damn relativism.

conklin (#364)

Great, now some dude on the internet is questioning my masculinity implicitly because of my total lack of psychic turmoil about any of this. (I think?)

Sincerely,
A stay-at-home dad.

Fancy (#4,084)

I think that's probably the key (full disclosure: recently singled woman here) – whether you're stay-at-home dad or POTUS: a man goes about taking care of shit without breaking down or feeling especially entitled for doing so. And a man must be hot. Just look good – always – and um, handle your business. (For more, please see "GENDER ROLES FOR WOMEN".)

wb (#2,214)

The best thing about this column? It manages to make a leotard into a symbol for masculinity. Props.

Aatom (#74)

Sorry, this show is endlessly entertaining. I am man enough to admit that I devour every minute with ridiculous glee.

cuiveen (#370)

I think I've been a geigh too long. I kinda' dozed off in the middle of this article only to be awakened by the adorable pics of the Pres et les bébés.

barnhouse (#1,326)

Barthel!! How exciting is this!! More please, you manly man.

KarenUhOh (#19)

If we all weren't so obsessed with what lies between our respective legs.

We should defnitely focus on the tits instead.

The straight men have been trying this for years.

petejayhawk (#1,249)

I hate it when one person projects their own insecurities/issues onto an entire gender.

See also: Up in the Air post.

joeclark (#651)

This seems generally incomprehensible and is itself an argument for the use of editors on blogs. Quite possibly actual masculine men are unaffected and actually do not think about it.

Bittersweet (#765)

I can guarantee you the man in my house has no clue about any of this crap. It's pretty refreshing.

hugesunglasses (#2,696)

This is a portrait of most of America.

Jeff Barea (#4,298)

Look, you can't have the kitschy name of awl and not have a night edition.

Abe Sauer (#148)

What? Huh? Are you suggesting John Wayne didn't love his kids? What ARE you suggesting because you, YOU, are directly addressing me quite a bit. Male bullshit? I'd throw in with JT Extreme ten times out of ten before spending an hour suffering your preposterous fantasy "my penis" philosophies. In fact, to avoid association, this whole piece kind of makes me not want to never again write for The Awl… dude, man.

Slava (#216)

As long as you keep commenting!

Fnnkybutt (#4,340)

"…whichever member of the relationship has more capacity to work more at any given point can work more, while the other person will do more domestic lifting, with the assumption that both will help out in each area…"

Fortunately for me, this is EXACTLY my marriage. However, because I'm the one that does most of the 'work' and my husband ends up doing a lot of the domestic lifting, I get hassled by family about how 'lazy' my husband is. It works for us… leave us the hell alone.

Keep on keepin' on.

NicFit (#616)

Ah to be 30 again and to take all of this societal horseshit so seriously.

MikeBarthel (#1,884)

I think maybe y'all are missing the larger point here. (This is Barthel btw.) Like many of the commenters, I feel I have come to a good working understanding of masculinity, and am not personally troubled by it much. And hooray! But maybe we enlightened Awl readers are not, as the social scientists say, a representative sample. Moreover, I'm trying to argue here that it's a major systematic problem for the goals of feminism that we haven't come to a COLLECTIVE decision about what masculinity looks like in a feminist world, and I think the signs of that are everywhere. (For the future!) At the same time, I think (CULTURAL STUDIES WARNING) that dudes tend not to even couch some of these worries in terms of masculinity, which was the thing I was trying to demonstrate with my example–I was vaguely bothered by my lack of earning power, but didn't really connect it to my gender identity (I KNOW SORRY) until the S.O. pointed it out. And at that point, I could have manned up and blustered a "ah what are you crazy I just hate having to buy generic bread" kind of response, or I could have considered that it might actually have something to do with an inherent notion of my gender that I wasn't generally conscious of. I went with curtain B, but different strokes, I guess. That masculinity's influences tend to be hidden is why it's interesting to me, I guess–there are things to discover!

joeclark (#651)

VitaPenis, this is not entirely unbullshit. We have quite an excellent idea of what masculinity looks like in a feminist world, to use the oppressor's terminology for a moment, and what it looks like is the twee, effete, self-apologizing metrosexualist or office nerd. It looks like the novelist who finds sex embarrassing (Awls passim).

It looks like a man who acts like a feminist woman with a really flat chest.

vase (#450)

I fucking enjoyed the shit out of reading this essay!

Post a Comment