a feminist detour

[reddressgnome]

ok, i admit, i read "Our Bodies Our Blog". you know, by the organization that brought you "Our Bodies Our Selves" and kick-started women's political participation on issues of sex and health?

i don't want to create a big snit, but i thought these two commentaries of "Live Free or Die Hard" were amusing. Die Hard's Patriarchic Message for the

Comments

[inthane]

(Don't worry, I'm going somewhere with this)

I've been reading a lot about masculinity (real masculinity, not the mocked-up macho bullcrap posturing that passes for it in our war-addicted society) for some time now. Classic books such as "A Fire in the Belly", "King, Warrior, Magician, Lover: Rediscovering the Masculine Male Archetypes" and "Iron John" have helped me to come to terms with many of the issues I've experienced in becoming an adult.

I was raised by a feminist who had quite literally "drunk the kool-aid." She is an amazing woman - cheerleader, homecoming queen, class valedictorian, leader of the ERA movement in Washington state, promoter of women's history and liberation, teacher and eventually principal. The only downside? She can't stand strong men in her life. She sees them as insults to her existence, and has to break them down. Her first marriage (which produced me) and her second marriage are perfect examples - my parents didn't work out because he wouldn't be broken by her. Her second marriage works because she just runs right over him for everything.

Of course this affected my viewpoint of masculinity growing up. I looked at maleness with a kind of loathing reserved for Hitler and Stalin, and of course this self-loathing really ate me up. I was depressed, introverted, refused to participate in the usual male rites of passage, that kind of thing. It took decades for me to wake up, and see a third way between the neofeminist hate of all things male, and the macho stereotype fronted by the war machine.

The problem with nature is it isn't politically correct in any way at all. Biologically, we men have distinctly different roles to play than you women. We are the disposable half of the species - how many of us would you need (from a biological perspective) to restart the species? Not a whole hell of a lot. So when we see the lion, we get all hyped up, and think we can take it. We charge the lion while you run away, we get eaten, and the line continues.

I am a protector. My personality type quite literally desires to give people protection from the world - I am the one who always is there for my friends if they need me, even if it costs me. My love for dancing originated in a bit in the Japanese film "Shall We Dance?" where dancing is explained to the protagonist as a contract between the two dancers - the follow surrenders to the lead, lets him guide her moves, and she unquestionably follows his lead. However, the other half of that contract, which so many forget is that the lead is completely responsible for the safety of his follow, that if she is in danger it is his responsibility to keep her safe from injury, even if he hurts himself in the process.

I'm not a control freak - I don't desire control over every aspect of my partner's life. I will hold the door for her, offer my hand, pay for dinner (unless she objects), the little things that say to her "I am a man, and I will protect you, because that's what I do. I do this not because I think you are weak, but to show the respect and honor due to you - that I think so much of you that I would inconvenience my own life to make yours easier."

So I see something knocking the Die Hard films for being needlessly paternalistic, and it knocks me both ways. The second article does raise some very good points - "ninja Asian girlfriend"? WTF? - but knocking the film for portraying men do what men (in my book, at least) are pretty much made for (protecting us from Bad Things) really rubs me the wrong way. There is room for men to be men AND women to be women within our world - neither of us has to knock the other one down to do it.

Gah. I don't know why that first article steamed me up as much as it did, but it sure did. :P

[reddressgnome]

uh oh, look out for the Big Snit :)

i thought it was interesting that the first article was (apparently) written by a man. and i thought he was saying that there are other kinds of masculinity than brute force. i mean, the kid already was in a protector role, he just wasn't doing it with a gun.

i definitely rankle at the idea that the men are making decisions for their women, in the guise of "protection". not saying you in particular would, just a couple of examples from the movie. here's where it gets twisted. somehow this idea of protection both denigrates *and* reveres the object of the protection. they aren't capable of defending themselves, and yet they require protection because they are precious? i don't like either concept.

again, i think the conclusion of the article was that our governance and society is run by a single, simplistic idea of man's role, and it's ignoring/excluding/insulting many other possible ways of approaching problems. it may sometimes be true that a man's job is to be a protector. but that is also true of mothers. i think the point was that reinforcing the simple stereotype makes it harder to include other forms of interaction/heroism/leadership *as well* as the protector type. given the plot line, the movie could have easily made the hacker(or the daughter) the hero and come out with an entirely different message(and many movies do just this).

(snipped blather about relationships.. i'm all tangled on that and don't have the energy to sort it out right now. just that i'm way more comfortable on a two-way street. i can count on a helping hand, and i can offer the same. that we both have the same role and expectations.)

does your world allow for a woman to be a protector, too? maybe if you were a woman you would still be a protector, but you would be like an angry mother bear instead of a warrior? i dunno, i guess i could say i'm a collaborator or an enabler or something like that, and i think that's a useful role for leadership as well.

i'm a terrible dancer because i don't follow the lead. :p (well, and also graceless and no ear for rhythm. heh. )

[inthane]

Yeah, I have no problem with women being protectors - one of the most suicidal things somebody can do is to come between a mother and her children, and I wouldn't try to protect that Darwin Award candidate at all.

I don't have the delusion that I'm in control of my partner's choices - if I had one, that is - I just offer my services as a protector and companion, and if she chooses to accept them, then there it is. On the other hand, if I see somebody in immediate danger, I won't wait for them to ask for help, I'll just jump in and do something about it - which is something that some people say is "over the line" and promotes patriarchy. WTF?

Now, it is possible to take this too far - the jealous father, for example, but they end up making fun of that stereotype it sounds like - but I'm not that kind of person. Some guys are, and those are the ones that I agree have gone WAY too far.

For what it's worth, I liked the first Die Hard. The second and the third? Meh. I don't even know when/if I'll see this one. There are much better films out there... And dances to be danced, and women to be chased, and books to be read, and and and and... ;)