BIT PART>>>

Gentleman 2.0

September 3, 2008 · 3 Comments

Shut up for a second and answer me this: what exactly is a “gentleman”?

Just think on that for a bit now. What comes to mind? What do you see? If you’re anything at all like one hundred percent of every author and blogger I’ve read on the subject in the past six months, you’re either imagining a clean cut and fit scholar and family man of the 1940’s complete with stylish jacket and tie or else a medieval knight of the court. If you’ve thought up something else, please let me know what it is because you fascinate me. If your image is something even remotely modern, all the better.

Why? Because I am frustrated.

Sexual politics is a difficult subject to broach in any forum, but the state of the Male identity has been bothering me for some time for reasons I can only slightly put my finger on. The men I know, including myself, have grown up with the dialogue of feminism always in our ears, and it’s had a peculiar effect on us. I don’t mean this as a barb at feminism. I’ve found that the institution and its proponents have grown smartly into feminism’s maturity, particularly in the past year or so by becoming increasingly cognizant of the need for the positive involvement of men as a replacement for the endless lambasting of guys’ inherent evil. But we young men, having heard this our entire lives even without, in many cases, ever harbouring a misogynistic thought, have been left with a warped sense of who we are and how we ought to conduct ourselves.

I’ve been reading tripe like The Art of Manliness and The Modern Gentleman on and off over the past few months, and it’s not sat well with me. Worse, I’m beginning to see the glut of such writing for what it is: a deeply misguided and unfortunate response to our identity crisis, appealing to archetypes established before the war of the sexes got so complicated. The love that these publications have for the forties/fifties man is almost nauseating, and it’s an obsession that lurks in far too many familiar places. It’s all very cookie cutter, very repetitive, and I’m finding it intolerable at this point. I don’t particularly want to be like Teddy Roosevelt and apparently that makes me a sissy.

Take a look at the Art of Manliness, I dare you. Notice anything about all of the goddamn pictures? They’re all pre-1969 by a mile. It’s eerie.

Reading this article over at Newsweek helped me piece this idea together, with it elaborating on some of the hard facts about how men under thirty are generally behaving aimless and resentful, with tremendously depressing results. It’s bad, it’s really quite bad.

So we’ve got this fetish for the turn of the century model man, which just seems too painfully, transparently like yearning for simpler days when we Y-chromosomers had monolithic and unquestioned power in relationships, education and money. It’s immature and it’s reductive, and I can understand what provokes it but it has got to stop. Regression of this kind isn’t admirable at any level, and the better part of a generation resorting to it will and is causing problems. Young men are making less money, pursuing less education, living on their own less, marrying later and later, shirking responsibilities of any sort, and generally and statistically being pathetic. It’s not alright.

Men wanting to be modern seem to run headlong into the new age of sexual politics, get upset that they don’t get to be patriarch, and say “fine!”, arguing sulkily that if women get to take over so much of their playground then they get to be stay at home dads, underachievers, layabouts, and childish. There’s this horrible quantum thinking going on where if we can’t have it all and be that 1940’s man then we’re going to do an about face and make those uppity wimmins do everything. We’ve got no readily available idea of the modern man because we’re not letting such an idea develop, and both sexes and a lot of young people are losing out because of this.

I treat the term “gentleman” as indicative of an ideal, something to work for and something worthy of respect.

So what should Gentleman 2.0 be? What should we young men aspire to be in this day and age? Is the very notion that we can have any kind of singular model of style and behaviour itself worthy of rejection? Or will leaving young men without any sort of clear identity or role model enable and worsen this demographic’s slump?

It’s time we had some new ideas in this arena, because the old stand by of a man being a totem of roughshod values which all essentially boil down to either a pugilist’s mitts or a gigolo’s charm. We can have a clear role and a strong identity without resorting to stereotypes or insisting that things like public speaking and leadership aren’t also relevant to women.

It’s worth thinking about, we’re better than this.

Categories: Uncategorized
Tagged: , ,

3 responses so far ↓

  • Al // September 3, 2008 at 5:44 pm | Reply

    What should we young men aspire to be in this day and age? Is the very notion that we can have any kind of singular model of style and behaviour itself worthy of rejection? Or will leaving young men without any sort of clear identity or role model enable and worsen this demographic’s slump?

    I would argue that this demographic’s “slump”, as you mentioned, is due in part to the shifting gender roles in society. However, it is not because men lack a clear identity, but because there IS a very clear ideal being held up, but it is becoming more and more unachievable as the world moves ever-so-slowly away from the absolute primacy of men. They are frustrated about not being able to achieve some of the privileges that they have always been socialized to believe to be their birthright. I would say this disconnect between what they’ve been taught they should by rights be, and the fact that that ideal is not necessarily recognizable, is what is causing this “slump.”

    That being said, the answer is not to simply replace one outdated stereotype with a new one. Defining men as they contrast with women serves no one. It would simply reinforce an unproductive gender divide (based, may I add, on the wholly fictional concept that gender is a clear binary.) Do we need a “white man” role model to contrast with a different “black man” role model? What about those in between? Who decided that people must define themselves in such terms?

    My understanding of feminism would lead me to suggest that the fundamental ideals of identity should be similar for all humans; be someone who loves, respects, and supports your family, friends, partner(s), and those less fortunate or powerful than yourself (i.e. the poor, the disabled, children). Don’t cause or be complicit in mental or physical violence towards anyone.

    These are not complicated ideas, and they provide a clear picture of an ideal human identity, without restricting individuals from expressing their sex, gender, sexual preferences, talents, abilities, desires, and ambitions based on arbitrary labelling.

    You want to be a good man? Support those you care about and extend basic respect to everyone else. The rest is up to you, and who you wish to be – husband, father, astronaut, drag queen, kindergarten teacher, or all or none of the above.

  • Kevin (ReturnToManliness) // September 4, 2008 at 12:56 am | Reply

    I found this piece very intriguing. You are an articulate, well spoken writer and I appreciate the thoughts you placed on this. You didn’t fire off your displeasure on AoM after a few readings – you waited until you had 6 months or so under your belt and that tells me you thought this out.

    My site is all over the place at the moment. I have been writing for just a couple of months with VERY good readership and participation thus far, however, it lacks a consistent theme which I wish to promote. What you have summed up in this post is what I have been searching.

    My friend, Cody, has tried to explain to me his thoughts on the AoM and tried to explain what it means to him. You added an even greater depth to his thoughts and for that, I commend you.

    Al’s comments are intriguing as well. His last paragraph is revealing and concise. The identity of “being a man” is different for each of us. Some core themes should be present, but to follow along with the herd on popular beliefs of the 1940’s model of manliness is insane. I am glad you articulated such in your post.

    Thanks for writing this great content. I plan on putting something on my site about it. You are on to something with your thoughts. Also, I read the NW article when it first came out as well on Guyland. I agree with your sentiments.

  • sandrar // September 10, 2009 at 3:00 pm | Reply

    Hi! I was surfing and found your blog post… nice! I love your blog. :) Cheers! Sandra. R.

Leave a Comment