I have been guilty of many of the grievances outlined here. I think more than anything it’s a consequence of a culture that celebrates immaturity and individuality. That can certainly lead you down the road to self-absorption: NYO: Stuff It, Emo Boy!
-
“I would say that historically, and right up through the present, one of the things that defined femininity—especially in the white, middle-class culture—is women listening to men and being their audience, their support system, and really asking for relatively little of that in return,” she said. “There’s been a really disproportionate share of attention of all kinds that men demand and assume as their due.”
As for the rise of the emo boy, “Men have always assumed that they get the lion’s share of air time,” Dr. Fels said. “It may be that this is the new fashion in how they monopolize the air time: If this is how women want it, I will talk in these terms. But it’s the same assumption that they will speak more, be listened to more, be supported more.”
I thought that was a great article, particularly since I read an expose of sorts on the “wimpster” in my last BUST magazine. Of course, they hit the nail on the head when they mention the underlying misogyny that makes the wimpster a threat.
There’s a big difference between being genuinely honest and sensitive and merely using the appearance of honesty and sensitivity to manipulate women into making it “all about you.”
That being said, I am really obsessed with what I perceive to be the crisis of masculinity in postmodern America so I read this kind of stuff all the time. I think it might be starting to annoy my husband, especially since I offered my critique of “American Beauty” (which I just recently saw) as a work that explores the American crisis of masculinity through the themes of the doppelganger, the threat of femaleness and the homophobia/latent homosexuality of the American male.
I would love to hear that critique! Please enlighten us.
Eek, now I feel on the spot. The crisis of masculinity, as I and others perceive it, is the disconnect straight American men feel from the traditional masculine model of their fathers and grandfathers because of the threat posed to it by women’s and gay liberation, and the difficulty of trying to redefine their own masculinity.
Okay. Here’s the short version. Lester feels unable to express his masculinity because his wife Carolyn dominates him financially and emotionally. Because she denies him sex, he seeks out unsuitable love objects (Angela) whom he can, in turn, dominate and who will not question his masculinity. In doing so, he also sublimates his incestuous desires for Jane.
Ricky serves as Lester’s doppelganger, the mysterious double every person supposedly has and who, in folklore, heralds one’s own imminent death when one sees him. To Lester, Ricky represents his own free younger self. Ricky provides Lester with both a conduit to his freedom (by selling him marijuana and introducing the idea of simply quitting one’s job) and a suitable (non-incestuous) sexual partner for Jane of whom Lester can approve. Of course, Ricky also fulfills his folkloric role by introducing Lester to his father the Colonel, who eventually kills him.
The Colonel is the latent homosexual who channels what he perceives as illicit desire and his fear at being discovered into an intense homophobia. His choice of the military as a career both lampoons and reinforces the military as a male charade (a performance of masculinity for a global audience) and haven for closeted gays. His own wife does not work, portraying the traditional homemaker role as a prison which reduces her to a ghost.
There is no happy medium between the roles of the Colonel’s wife, who keeps an immaculate house but has become less than human, and the “bloodless, money-grubbing freak” Carolyn has become.
Lester eventually arrives at a new definition of masculinity, sensitive without being gay, sensual without being sexually threatening, and resolves his incestuous feelings by reminding himself of the vulnerability of Jane and Angela. Of course, in so doing he renders himself abject in the diegesis of the film–he can no longer fit inside the confines of his world, and so must die.
Therefore, the film offers the not-very-comforting idea that to resolve the crisis of masculinity is to become a new sort of person that cannot fit into traditional American life, meaning you must be expelled from the community.
Whew! Hope you don’t think that’s too weird.
My husband maintains that the film is a sort of Zen text, which the filmmakers kind of validate in the DVD commentary. So I guess I did all that thinking for nothing. Ha.
oh man, what a tease! I clicked on the link but it led to an unrelated article. Any other way I can access this article? Have been wanting to read up more on this emo phenom.
A really obnoxious manifestation of the phenomenon is the extremely heavy, dismal rock songs about “closure” and angst that I’ve heard playing over the sound system at the gym (where young and, I gather, emo guys control the tunes).