I'm about halfway through Guyland by Michael Kimmel and while I want to blog more on it later, I want to write about one thing that caught my attention. The fifth chapter discusses common rituals that exist in Guyland, most of which are done during college in fraternities, although their influence may be seen in other campus groups as well. Kimmel notes that fraternities flourished because they were a way to protect one's self image of manhood in a white patriarchal culture that was being invaded by others.
"...the Greek system really became entrenched in the United States during the late nineteenth century, when large land-grant universities [...] were required to admit women, newly arrived immigrants, and freed blacks who had migrated north. Fraternities were an answer to the question: Where can a white guy go where he won't have to be around all these women, minorities, and immigrants?"
Kimmel's book is about men between the ages of 16-26 in today's culture. The vast majority of his research is focused on white, middle class, college-educated men. And so far, he's been very successful at pointing out the ways in which many young, white, economically privileged men are threatened by those outside of their sphere and how this plays into their always stifling, and sometimes dangerous, antics to prove their manhood. And although his book is meant to address the issues of those on the upper echelons of society, this chapter seems just as relevant for those from the lower classes as well. The initiation into fraternities does not seem so different from the initiation into gangs.
I did not grow up in the greatest of neighborhoods (although it was by no means the worst) and it was not uncommon for me to know people (of both sexes) who were in gangs or wanted to be in gangs. I even know plenty of people who would pretend to be in gangs to get respect from others. But even for those who weren't in official gangs, there was still a large emphasis on who you're crew was, who you rolled with. And there were many rituals of proving manliness as well. I remember lots of my guy friends having cigarette burn marks and cuts that were meant purely to show bravado. The constant verbal harassment and the endless bragging about their sexual conquests were all means to convince themselves that they were tough and worthy of respect.
More disturbingly was the regular routine of trying to run trains on girls, which basically meant finding a girl who was willing to sleep with all of them (how willing these girls were and whether they were sober enough to really decide is something I always have questioned but have no way of knowing as I wasn't actually in the room when these things went on. This is an issue I hope to blog about in more depth another time). The train lingo referred to the action of one guy getting off and then the other guy getting on, and so on until they all "got a ride". Kimmel mentions the homoerotic nature of guyland rituals and I can think of any more homoerotic than this. Although they were all technically having sex with a girl/woman, they reveled in the shared experience with each other and were all working together to get each other off; whatever the girl thought or felt (sexually or otherwise) seemed pretty irrelevant (unless it was also to show off to the other guys--like, "look how I can make her scream, that's how manly I am guys").
So white, middle class men may be trying to prove their superiority and bond against a changing culture that accepts less everyday the notion that their maleness and whiteness are inherently better. But in the meantime, tons of lower class and/or minority men, and women in general, are trying to prove themselves in a culture that still for the time-being praises white maleness. They often do this by adopting the standards set by the white males. Kimmel mentions how historically black universities adopted the same rituals that were practiced by fraternities on predominantly white campuses. And books like Female Chauvinist Pigs document how many women today adopt stereotypical male behavior to get ahead (or just to get by) in the world. When adopting standards of the dominant sexist, racist culture to empower their own groups, black men will often use objects and actions that have been used against them by whites to keep black people in place (like paddles and branding); while women will adopt behavior that has been encouraged for men and often used to degrade women (being "tough" to the point of hurting others or using people sexually).
But what bothers me is the double standard in the different ways these behaviors are viewed and understood by society, all depending on who's taking part in them. Kimmel talks about white middle class societies' knee-jerk reaction to defend outlandish behavior by white males by giving them the "our guys" stamp of approval. "They can't really be that bad, they're nice kids from good families, like ours. Things just get out of control at times." But if the same acts are committed by men from the lower classes, especially if they're not white, there would be an onslaught of reprimands and public discussions regarding what is wrong with the culture (or maybe even genetics) of those people.
Similarly, when men do outlandish things, or normal things like having sex, there's a 'boys will be boys' shrugging of the shoulders. But if women behave in exactly the same way, there is an avalanche of articles, news reports and specials over how lost and troubled young women are today and the fingers are pointed at the women's movement even though this is precisely the system that feminism encourages people to discard, not embrace.
I think books like Guyland are a great step in helping to eradicate this problem as it presents the issue to white, middle class men to discuss the problems they face, while also making note of the ways in which their privilege hurts others. And like it or not, the fact that it was written by another white man helps. But what else can be done, especially on a day to day basis, to point out the double standards to those we interact with? Most of the people in my life, who aren't already aware of these issues, would likely either get defensive or (more often) laugh the suggestions off. A big part of my commitment to feminism lies in trying to educate those around in my life who probably no few to zero feminists besides me. But no matter what I do/say there always seems to be a certain wall that is impossible to knock down. So, I'm curious about how others handle these situations on an individual basis and what are innovative ways to handle this collectively going forward.
Cross-posted at Dancing Backwards
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: The Double Standards of Guyland.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/11933
a very thoughtful post. i might buy guyland now. thanks for sharing!
I haven't read Guyland yet. From what I've heard/read about it seems like it describes guys I see on TV rather than the middle class white 20-25 year old guys I go to school with. There are definitely some guys who fit his description, but most of the guys I know are not pornography/sexed crazed, binge drinking, video game, not working, maniacs that he seems to describe...but then again I haven't read the book yet so I don't know if this is actually how he depicts guys, that's just what I get from the reviews.
But, I think you make some good points about the double standard.
Thanks for the brilliant article, FNCasamento!
I've always thought that gang culture and fratboy culture were remarkably similar - you did a good job of diagraming just how closely related they are.
The only thing - I'd amplify your statements about "running trains".
Yes, "running a train" is rape!
There's no need to hem and haw about it, or equivocate about how you "weren't there and didn't know for sure"!
If a guy gets a woman drunk and extracts consent from her to have sex with him - and then invites the whole crew to join in WITHOUT even the thinnest pretense of consent, that is clearly rape.
Tupac Shakur found that out the hard way - he got a drunk woman he met in a club to "agree" to have sex with him, and then forced her to have sex with 4 of his flunkies.
A New York County assistant DA thought that was rape - so did a New York County grand jury, and a New York County trial jury (and all 34 of those people were right).
So running trains is rape, no iffs, ands or buts about it.
And running trains is indeed homoerotic - it really is the only "not-gay" way for gangbangers, fratboys or soldiers (to name the three most common types of gang rapists) or other male close friends to have sex with their buddies.
They love their male friends, and have secret longings for them, but to act out on those longings would be "GAY" and would guarantee that they'd be outcasts in their little homosocial clique.
So, they get a woman in the mix - and the very presence of a woman in the sexual encounter makes it "not-gay" and therefore socially acceptable.
It's still a bunch of naked men reveling in each others sexual pleasure (but if there's a bruised crying woman in the room, it's OK "We're not gay, we're 'running a train'" is the excuse).
As you said, the woman isn't even considered a person, she's a symbol of "not-gayness".
It's kind of like the way that adolescent African American and Latino young men in New York City say the phrase "NO HOMO!" if they in any way express love or affection for a male friend (example - "nice kicks sneakers man - NO HOMO!!!!"
The woman in a "running a train" gang rape scenario is a living "NO HOMO" - her presence enables close male friends to have man on man group sex that is "not gay".