"Deconstructions," positive masculinity, and (of course) White Collar.
It's no secret that we're living in a pop culture that's awash with asshole male anti-heroes. Rough, manly men, who may or may not care about doing the right thing. They solve their problems with violence and disrespect those around them. I'll admit up front that this isn't a character type designed to appeal to me, and I'm really quite sick of the mold.
Pop culture doesn't seem to be done churning out these manly assholes, but there are hints that they're no longer being treated as the new daring thing to do. Several months back, I made a futile attempt to watch HBO's True Detective. I loathed the main characters so intensely I couldn't finish the eight episode series. (And I only had two episodes to go. I just couldn't take it any longer.) I saved special loathing for Hart, a violent, philandering, possessive misogynist. However, I saw it argued that True Detective was a deconstruction of these anti-hero shows, and it was a critical examination of masculinity.
First, I think "deconstruction" is a lot like a satire these days. That is, it's a perfectly valid idea that most certainly exists, but it's trotted out far too often when what's really going on is "We're doing the same old shit, but we're doing it ironically." A work is not a deconstruction just because you say it is.
Furthermore, works like True Detective and similar are offered up as deconstructions because they show consequences of the alpha-male dirt bag heroes running amok. But the fact that these characters end up alienated from family and society isn't deconstructive at all. Home and family, of course, are always coded feminine, so the idea that being a real man would make you unfit for family life is an old idea. But civilization is in itself coded feminine.Look to the old idea is that marriage civilizes men. Look at the old images of the Marlboro Man and Marlboro Country. Look at the ending of Dirty Harry. The idea that ultimate masculinity cannot thrive within the constrains of civilization is neither new nor radical.
Nor does the fact that these characters are made unhappy by their actions prove deconstruction. One of the myths of the patriarchy that is most toxic to men is that men should be removed from their emotions. Women are weak because they're emotional. Men should be above that. Men's sadness just makes them stronger. This is one of the fundamental places "mainpain" comes from. The idea that suffering places a man on a special level. The entire of Batman is not a deconstruction.
I can't think of any work that I personally would call a deconstruction of masculinity, though that of course doesn't mean there isn't one. But I think one would require a lot more than "man acts macho and is sad."
What does White Collar have to do with any of this? Well, while I can't offer any genuine deconstruction of toxic masculinity, I can offer what I believe to be a positive counter-example. And that's where White Collar comes in.
I've said a lot of this before, and will very possibly say much of it again. But I'm going to say it now too!
Neal Caffrey is an uber-cool hero. And some of that is tied to traditional masculinity. He's a hit with the ladies, for example. But so much of what makes Neal cool is very different from the usual. Neal is uber-suave... because he pays such attention to his clothes. Women flock to him... because he's a gourmet chef. Neal's deeply concerned with his appearance. He likes art and culture. He listens to public radio. He's sensitive. He solves his problems with emotional intelligence and manipulation, which are very much how women are supposed to work. Neal has actually never won a physical confrontation. And yet none of this is meant to make him any less than the epitome of cool. And Neal loves being himself. There's no internal or external pressure for Neal to "man up."
And then there's Peter. Peter is much traditionally masculine. He's a guy's guy, who likes beer and sports. And yet Peter's masculinity is never destructive. He doesn't use his masculinity to put down either Neal or the women in his life. Peter may not understand the appeal of more traditionally feminine pursuits, but he doesn't disrespect them. Peter is comfortable being himself, so he never feels the need to make anyone uncomfortable for being themselves.
Masculinity is such an uncertain beast. Men have to be on constant guard from doing the wrong thing and getting labeled weak or feminine. The easiest way to keep masculinity to grind down others. And yet Peter doesn't engage in that. Peter's comfort in himself is in its own way, quite radical, I think.
There is one thing used to set Neal up as cool that falls much more to the traditionally masculine end of the spectrum, and that's his shooting ability. Neal's really good with guns, although he doesn't like them. We very rarely see this ability, but when we do it's meant to be impressive, such as "Hard Sell" when the audience first discovers Neal's competency and "Checkmate" when he shoots Keller through Peter's pant leg.
Does that undermine my point? Maybe, until you realize that one of Peter's coolest scenes is when he unexpectedly knows how to tango in "Veiled Threat." Everything about how that scene is presented makes it clear we're meant to be impressed. Something similar, though not as dramatic, happens in "Bottlenecked" when Peter reveals his ability to BS about wine.
It's presented as cool when Peter and Neal go outside their comfort zones and succeed. Whether it's Neal doing something more aggressive than usual, or Peter being more refined than expected, the strength of these scenes is the way they mess with expectations. No one is forced to be stuck in one role.
Look, I'd never argue that White Collar is a work of true artistic genius, but I do honestly think that in terms of depicting masculinity, it has more nuanced, and indeed more daring, ideas and characterizations than some of the so-called greats.
This entry was originally posted at http://veleda-k.dreamwidth.org/390576.html. Please consider commenting there.
Pop culture doesn't seem to be done churning out these manly assholes, but there are hints that they're no longer being treated as the new daring thing to do. Several months back, I made a futile attempt to watch HBO's True Detective. I loathed the main characters so intensely I couldn't finish the eight episode series. (And I only had two episodes to go. I just couldn't take it any longer.) I saved special loathing for Hart, a violent, philandering, possessive misogynist. However, I saw it argued that True Detective was a deconstruction of these anti-hero shows, and it was a critical examination of masculinity.
First, I think "deconstruction" is a lot like a satire these days. That is, it's a perfectly valid idea that most certainly exists, but it's trotted out far too often when what's really going on is "We're doing the same old shit, but we're doing it ironically." A work is not a deconstruction just because you say it is.
Furthermore, works like True Detective and similar are offered up as deconstructions because they show consequences of the alpha-male dirt bag heroes running amok. But the fact that these characters end up alienated from family and society isn't deconstructive at all. Home and family, of course, are always coded feminine, so the idea that being a real man would make you unfit for family life is an old idea. But civilization is in itself coded feminine.Look to the old idea is that marriage civilizes men. Look at the old images of the Marlboro Man and Marlboro Country. Look at the ending of Dirty Harry. The idea that ultimate masculinity cannot thrive within the constrains of civilization is neither new nor radical.
Nor does the fact that these characters are made unhappy by their actions prove deconstruction. One of the myths of the patriarchy that is most toxic to men is that men should be removed from their emotions. Women are weak because they're emotional. Men should be above that. Men's sadness just makes them stronger. This is one of the fundamental places "mainpain" comes from. The idea that suffering places a man on a special level. The entire of Batman is not a deconstruction.
I can't think of any work that I personally would call a deconstruction of masculinity, though that of course doesn't mean there isn't one. But I think one would require a lot more than "man acts macho and is sad."
What does White Collar have to do with any of this? Well, while I can't offer any genuine deconstruction of toxic masculinity, I can offer what I believe to be a positive counter-example. And that's where White Collar comes in.
I've said a lot of this before, and will very possibly say much of it again. But I'm going to say it now too!
Neal Caffrey is an uber-cool hero. And some of that is tied to traditional masculinity. He's a hit with the ladies, for example. But so much of what makes Neal cool is very different from the usual. Neal is uber-suave... because he pays such attention to his clothes. Women flock to him... because he's a gourmet chef. Neal's deeply concerned with his appearance. He likes art and culture. He listens to public radio. He's sensitive. He solves his problems with emotional intelligence and manipulation, which are very much how women are supposed to work. Neal has actually never won a physical confrontation. And yet none of this is meant to make him any less than the epitome of cool. And Neal loves being himself. There's no internal or external pressure for Neal to "man up."
And then there's Peter. Peter is much traditionally masculine. He's a guy's guy, who likes beer and sports. And yet Peter's masculinity is never destructive. He doesn't use his masculinity to put down either Neal or the women in his life. Peter may not understand the appeal of more traditionally feminine pursuits, but he doesn't disrespect them. Peter is comfortable being himself, so he never feels the need to make anyone uncomfortable for being themselves.
Masculinity is such an uncertain beast. Men have to be on constant guard from doing the wrong thing and getting labeled weak or feminine. The easiest way to keep masculinity to grind down others. And yet Peter doesn't engage in that. Peter's comfort in himself is in its own way, quite radical, I think.
There is one thing used to set Neal up as cool that falls much more to the traditionally masculine end of the spectrum, and that's his shooting ability. Neal's really good with guns, although he doesn't like them. We very rarely see this ability, but when we do it's meant to be impressive, such as "Hard Sell" when the audience first discovers Neal's competency and "Checkmate" when he shoots Keller through Peter's pant leg.
Does that undermine my point? Maybe, until you realize that one of Peter's coolest scenes is when he unexpectedly knows how to tango in "Veiled Threat." Everything about how that scene is presented makes it clear we're meant to be impressed. Something similar, though not as dramatic, happens in "Bottlenecked" when Peter reveals his ability to BS about wine.
It's presented as cool when Peter and Neal go outside their comfort zones and succeed. Whether it's Neal doing something more aggressive than usual, or Peter being more refined than expected, the strength of these scenes is the way they mess with expectations. No one is forced to be stuck in one role.
Look, I'd never argue that White Collar is a work of true artistic genius, but I do honestly think that in terms of depicting masculinity, it has more nuanced, and indeed more daring, ideas and characterizations than some of the so-called greats.
This entry was originally posted at http://veleda-k.dreamwidth.org/390576.html. Please consider commenting there.