Manhood in America

The Definition of Manhood

So far this term we have taken a few different looks at the definition of American women, but very few concerning the definitions of manhood. So what does it mean to be an American man? Tocqueville offers a few different ideas, while old rules of chivalry also shape our definition of manhood. But as journalists like Susan Faludi point out, often our definitions of manhood are merely myths that have little truth in modern reality.

In the later chapters of book 3 of "Democracy in America", Tocqueville asserts his observations on the ambition of American men. The destiny of sons in America differs quite sharply from their counterparts in aristocratic nations. In an aristocratic nation the first born son inherits all the property from the father. Upon his father's death, he assumes the mantle of patriarch and leads the family in all of its affairs. Fate condemns the subsequent sons to a much more harsh life. These sons inherit no property and are left to either make their way in the military or to serve the eldest brother. But in America there are no such predetermined fates. A son can always throw off the shackles of his father's class and make his way in the world. Tocqueville asserts that the ability to become more successful than one's father and the freedom delivered by revolution drive this incredible ambition of men found in America.

Chivalry also impacts our view of manliness. The concept of an honor-bound knight has been immortalized in countless tales. In these legends, a man is someone who serves with the utmost loyalty and fights bravely even in the face of uncertainty and death. He always saves the helpless damsel and slays the dragon.

But Susan Faludi points out many flaws in the media's attempt to overlay these chivalric, macho ideals on top of real stories. In the frantic search for any stories to fit their myths, magazines all across America hailed Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfield as the new ideal of masculinity. Having very few actual examples of bold, male rescuers saving distraught women, magazines forced Rumsfield and Bush to fit this revived mold of "the cowboy of yesterday". The media hailed fireman as the most desirable men in the country, while the government hosted banquet after banquet. But in this aftermath many firemen grew to resent all of this attention, while the strides made in previous decades by firewomen were cut back.

So what do the societal forces in America have to say about being a man in modern times? Is it defined by one's ambition and individuality as it had been in America during the 1800's? Or is it this revived definition of male strength and honor that harkens back to the days of knights. As Faludi argues, the post 9/11 media believe the latter.

Works Cited:

Susan Faludi's "The Terror Dream"

Alexis Tocqueville's "Democracy in America"

http://toxicculture.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/rumsfeld.jpg

Womanhood in America

From the early days of colonization, America has been known as the land of greatness and freedom. "A City upon a hill", as Puritan leader John Winthrop called it, has been an analogy used to describe America for centuries. But the reality of life in America is that people are not free to do whatever they please or become whomever they want to become. The underlying cultural currents and ideas of gender dominate and shape our lives from the moment we are born. And the ideals that we like to believe about American womanhood and the reality of gender ideas are often in stark contrast.

Alexis Tocqueville's "Democracy in America" has been a dominant force in shaping our ideas of gender and freedom in America ever since its publication in the mid 19th century. Tocqueville asserts that women in America are more free than in any other nation. Released from the bonds of male dominated aristocracies, American women are educated and exposed to world their entire lives. This enables them to make rational choices in marriage, which contribute to the good morals of the country as a whole. Also this rationality disillusions them from the romantic ideals of marriage and love and allows them to persevere through any strain on their marriage. As a whole, America loves to celebrate the ideas of Tocqueville, commend ourselves on our gender equality, and respect the roles of our determined women.

But the reality of gender equality harshly contradicts Tocqueville's ideals, as Susan Faludi asserts in "The Terror Dream". Faludi asserts that in the aftermath of 9/11, feminists, female journalists, and women in general became a scapegoat for the media. Feminists were accused of feminizing our men, and that somehow equality of the sexes equaled vulnerability to terrorist plots. Journalists who spoke out against the overbearing media themes of masculine patriotism were subjugated to immense criticism and backlash, as in the case of Susan Sontag. And even if female journalists conformed to the media's message, their voices were slowly silenced, as was the case for many women in op-ed pieces.

So what does it mean to be a women in America? Like many other questions about human identity it is one that is too complex to ever be answered accurately or completely. American women are bombarded from every corner about the definition of womanhood. Tocqueville's assertions idealize democracy and equality in America, while the mass media often portray a much different image. Perhaps to answer this question, we must keep in mind that there is no absolute answer and we have be aware and differentiate between the stories we tell ourselves and the reality of life.

Works Cited:

Alexis Tocqueville's "Democracy in America"

Susan Faludi's "The Terror Dream"

Equality of the Sexes in Mad Men

Don't let the title of this post fool you, there isn't a whole lot. Tocqueville asserts that in the United States women are treated with more reverence and equality than in Europe. First and foremost, women are educated in America and exposed to the world from an early age. They are armed with reason, not just religion, to guide their judgement. American women choose their marriages for love but do so with rationality. Tocqueville believes that this contributes to stability of marriages and the high morals found in America. Also, women persevere through any conditions. As a result of these strong characteristics, Tocqueville asserts that women are treated with reverence and with equality by their male counterparts. While men and women preform separate tasks, American society acknowledges and respects the role of women.

Yet somehow, the American society of the 1950's, as portrayed in "Mad Men", differs from Tocqueville's "Democracy in America". The first example is this reverence towards the role of women and the respect for their roles. Peggy's coworkers treat her, along with every other women in the office, as a mere sex symbol. The men in the office constantly hit on her and make sexual innuendo after sexual innuendo. The relationship of Don and Betty calls into question Tocqueville's belief in marriage as a love filled, yet rational union. Don commits in extramarital affairs, while his wife deals with the children in the suburbs. Don does not respected the equality of his wife or her role in their marriage. He treats her like he treats his children. When he comes home from work to find that his wife got into an accident, he asks if it their daughter was acting out, as if his wife cannot control their kids. Also when Betty returns from the psychiatrist, Don calls up the doctor to find out what's going on. The way they discuss Betty and her session is like two fathers talking about a little girl.

Tocqueville's "Democracy in America" has influenced American's perception of gender roles and marriage for centuries. But the reality of the matter is that his assertions idealize that which is inherently imperfect: humans and their relationships. "Mad Men" portrays the vast disparity between the way men and women are treated in the 1950's as well as the confusion that comes as people struggle with these American ideals.

Works Cited:

Tocqueville's "Democracy in America"

"Mad Men"

http://swordattheready.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/de-tocqueville.jpg

Portrayal of the 1950's Family

When one speaks of "traditional American values" our minds immediately bring up images of white picket fences, rows of identical suburban homes, and the good old fashion family togetherness of the 1950's. But as revealed to us by books like Stephanie Coontz's "The Way We Never Were" and shows like "Madmen", the quintessential, happy, American family of the 1950's was merely a facade -- crafted and perpetrated partially by the sitcoms of the era. "Madmen" portrays a much different image of what family life was like in the 1950's, and gives us a different perceptive with which to view that era.

In the 1950’s, the prevailing consensus (or propaganda if you will) was that getting married young, cranking our babies, and living a family-focused life in a homogenous community would bring you a happy, fulfilled existence. Shows like “Leave it to Beaver” assert just those thoughts. The parents are incredibly involved in their children’s lives. When Wally joins the football team in the episode “The Shave”, it becomes the focus of the family’s attention for the first portion of the show. Then once he starts feeling self-conscience about his lack of facial hair, the entire family becomes involved until the “problem” is resolved. At the end of the episodes, a moral lesson is learned and the family is happy.

But the dynamics at work in “Madmen” are completely different than those of 1950’s sitcoms. While the young men in the office are getting married young (like Pete Campbell), it isn’t viewed as the means to happiness. On the contrary, the boys joke around that it is something of a death sentence. And while both Don and Betty think that they have it all (a wonderful home, kids, money), neither of them are truly happy.

The sanctity of marriage and how it is treated is also something that differs between “Leave it to Beaver” and “Madmen”. In “Leave it to Beaver” the mother and father would never divorce, let alone admit that the family is unhappy. And forget about any mention of adultery. In “Madmen” divorce still carries a stigma, but marriage isn’t treated with the same reverence as in ‘50’s shows. Every guy in the office sleeps around, regardless of his marital status. Don alternates nights at home with Betty and with Mig in the city. And the night before Pete Campbell’s wedding, the only thing on his mind is sleeping with another woman.

Both of these shows are works of fiction. Neither of them can ever completely or accurately portray the families of the era, since generalizing every family even within a specific demographic is impossible. But media can carry a lot of power. “Leave it to Beaver” and similar shows have been so ingrained in our minds and culture that they’ve slowly become accepted as a truthful portrayal of that time period. But shows like “Madmen” help us to remember that things were never that simple and wholesome. The human condition is one that is defined by complexity, contradictions, and struggle. And this needs to be remembered whenever one is talking about “traditional American values” and the 1950’s.

Works Cited:

"Leave it to Beaver"

"Madmen"

http://maedchenmitherz.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/mad_men_cd_cover_325x325.jpg

Redemption and Family

When I first saw this commercial, I was more than a little confused. I didn't immediately realize whose voice was speaking or what was going on. But after listening to the buzz surrounding this ad from ESPN and on the internet, I began to get an idea about what this ad is doing, how Nike is trying to rebuild Tiger's brand, and how the media portrays real life stories.

We all know that literary stories and themes can't be superimposed onto real life. When you're sad and it starts raining outside, its not some pathetic fallacy. It rains because the water in the clouds has become dense enough to fall. Nor can almost mythic tales of redemption and heroism be placed onto real stories in sports. But somehow that doesn't stop the media from trying. In this ad, Tiger isn't the womanizing, out of control adult that we've come to realize he is. He's a child facing his father who has to explain himself. When Nike put up this ad, it was right before the Masters. For the past few months Tiger has attested to the fact that he is a changed man. He claims he was a victim of sex addiction and for the past few months he has made strides to improve himself. And if Tiger was to win the Masters, the media would have portrayed the victory as a sign from the gods of their approval. It would complete this tale of fall from greatness, redemption, and the return to the top.

But he didn't win. So that left the media struggling for a story for all of about two seconds. Because the man who did win was Phil Mickelson. He is painted as the perfect family man. Three children, happily married for 13 years, and no known scandals or affairs. His wife is undergoing treatment for breast cancer, and the tearful, emotional embrace after his victory seems to confirm that family values will always triumph at the end of the day.

But things are not always as they seem. While the media is telling this tale of Phil Mickelson's devotion to his family and the power of family ideals, we never know if this is really true. After all, didn't Tiger Woods build a reputation, brand, and an empire on just those images? And if Tiger had won, it wouldn't have redeemed him or absolved him of his sins. I don't care how many public apologizes he makes or how many times he attests to his changes. Trust can only be rebuilt through years and years of actions and commitment and maybe Tiger can never build back what he has lost. The media likes to bend the facts in order to fit some overarching story. But keep in mind, real life rarely fits those stories perfectly.

Works Cited:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NTRvlrP2NU&feature=related

The Modern Family

While sitcoms have always sought to ease our stress and provide light comic relief through awkward situations and events, they can also be a commentary on the values of the time. 1950's comedies portrayed a strong, knowledgeable father figure, a docile, selfless wife, and respectful children. These shows expressed the values of '50s and the idea of what it meant to be a family in that era. ABC's new sitcom, "Modern Family", may one day become the authority of what it meant to be a family in 2010. And the ideas of what constitutes a family now differ a lot from those in years past.

First and foremost, the idea of family portrayed in "Modern Family" is incredibly broad and diverse. In the '50s a family was strictly a heterosexual male married to a heterosexual female with their biological children. In the three families in "Modern Family" you have a "traditional family", a gay couple with an adopted, asian baby, and a old man living with his (much) younger wife and stepson. The father figures in two of the families try to portray some of the ideals of a "traditional" father. Phil likes to think of himself as a funny guy who always has a pearl of wisdom for every situation, but as thing get bad in the episode "Game Changer" he regresses back to childhood memories and actions. Jay likes to think of himself as more intelligent and skilled in chess than his wife and stepson, but they are actually only let him win to keep him from throwing a fit. These shows represent very different family dynamics and realities than their 1950's counterparts. The parents are the bumbling idiots in these cases, and often hold differing views than their partners. The children are the ones who are usually right in most situations and have to deal with their parents' mistakes.

"Modern Family" portrays families as quite different than "Leave it to Beaver" does. In some ways its better. "Modern Family" acknowledges that the meaning of family is quite broad and diverse. It doesn't have to be a mom, a dad, and a couple of kids. It also shows extended families as very close, which is something that was unusual for '50's families. But in other ways its worse. For one the plot of "Game Changer" shows a world where happiness is dependent on what you own. And as unrealistic as the "family togetherness" was of "Leave it to Beaver" at least it's a better message than materialism. Whether other episodes of "Modern Family" will follow this trend of cobranding remains to be seen. But the fact of the matter is that the ideas of family portrayed in sitcoms in 2010 are much different than those of the '50's.

Works Cited:

Leave it to Beaver

Modern Family

http://static.tvfanatic.com/images/gallery/modern-family-poster.jpg

http://www.tvcrazy.net/images/beaver.jpg

Leave It to Beaver: Ideals of the 1950's

As Stephanie Coontz asserts in "The Way We Never Were", "A contradiction in terms of earlier periods, the child-centered family took its place at the center of the postwar American dream". The Leave It to Beaver episodes portray the ideals of the 1950's family, the gender roles, and the relationship between parents and their children. But at the center of the shows "The Shave" and "Double Date" the children struggle with (and often rush) the transition to manhood.

The family dynamic of the ideal 1950's family is clear: the father at the head, followed by the mother and children. While the father is quite involved with his children's personal lives and issues at home, the idea of separate spheres is still prevalent. The mother stays home all day housekeeping while the father goes off to work to prove his worth as breadwinner. The mother in Leave It to Beaver also frequently talks about dinner parties that they will be attending, who will be there, and what her husband should wear. Clearly this relates back to the idea that the ideal 1950's wife should not have her own career, but merely help further her husband's through social events and connections. Also the ideal mother is characterized as very protective and constantly worrying, as shown when Wally makes the freshman football team in "The Shave". But the father is incredibly interested and proud of his son's athletic achievements.

In the last two minutes of both episodes, the story comes to a nice moral finish. Everything resolves itself and the boys learn a good lesson about life. But I found it strange that the lesson learned by Wally in "The Shave" and by Beaver in "Double Date" were almost exactly the same: don't grow up to quickly. The boys revere masculinity. Its a huge accomplishment when a boy starts to shave, symbolizing his transition into adulthood. Wally's feelings of insecurity over his lack of facial hair causes him to rush the process, trying to shave when he doesn't need to. But in the end he learns that its more important to be a man on the inside. Beaver feels this need to prove he isn't a child anymore in "Double Date", by taking a girl out to the movies. But in the end his bravado fails him as he admits that he is too afraid to take her out.

Both episodes tell their audiences that they shouldn't grow up to quickly. Preserve this innocent family ideal for as long as you can, because trying to rush it will only cause problems. But beneath that these episodes say even more about the 1950's through what they don't say. The biggest problems in this family is that the boys want to grow up and aren't ready. Those aren't really important problems. The family is portrayed as perfectly happy and doesn't acknowledge the fact that family or marriages could be plagued with stress and problems. Maybe these shows were necessary in a time of incredible fear from a nuclear war and American people needed an escape into a more simple world. But the fact that these shows created unreal, perfect families without addressing real problems only served to hurt their audiences and create incredibly high expectations.

Works Cited:

Stephanie Coontz "The Way We Never Were"

Leave It to Beaver