June 25, 2004
Guys and Gals
As usual, 2blowhards has a great discussion going. This time, it's one that classifies men into two types: those that love women for being women and those that consider women as something of an accessory. It started with some off-hand comments in this post about "Neuromancer", which prompted a followup. That post has now been replied to by an even longer post.
I certainly agree that most American men find women to be something of a necessary evil, great to look at, lust for, and sleep with, but otherwise frustrating and inscrutable. Part of this is likely the eternal disconnect between male and female modes of thought being amplified and exacerbated by our technological culture. As more information and gadgets have become available for men to obsess over we've seen the rise of the geeks and wonks. We like our toys; we're in awe of their magic and sleekness. In a slightly modified form, these are two of the primary qualities in women that the 2Blowhards discussion chides modern American men for ignoring. Has technology taken over some niche in the male mind that once was reserved for women?
Another point made is that American men no longer care much about "seeking-the-poetry-in-women," that is, discovering and exploring the fascinating ways they differ emotionally and intellectually from men. Perhaps part of this is like a bad hangover from too much feminism—repeatedly hearing that there's no difference between men and women must have some effect, after all. However, I think Michael suggests another possible cause in his terminology. It's been well-observed that most Americans are now what you might call sub-literate. That is, they're more than capable of reading and writing (however poorly), but completely bored by literature and the arts in general. Unfortunately for them, poetry and other arts have, throughout their histories, been repositories for the best and most lyrical explorations of and paeans for women. As an appreciation for the arts can deepen one's understanding and love for its subjects, is it at all surprising that a decline of interest in artistic beauty comes at the same time we see a similar decline of fascination with women as natural expressions of the same?
Also to be considered is the pernicious saturation of unflattering portrayals of both men and women in the media. We've all heard the regular criticisms of the pressures super-models and their impossibly waif-like appearances put on women. Consistently assaulted by these unrealistic expectations, they lose confidence in their own attractiveness and desirability; unfortunately for them, confidence is a key component for finding someone attractive. However, men, too, are affected by these images. We're subtly trained to find that sleek, lithe form—mirrored in the cool lines of our gadgets—to be the ideal woman. Then there are the buffoonish men seen in practically every modern sitcom—the insensitive louts, the ignorant fools. Is it any surprise television has been hemorrhaging viewers in the male 18-35 demographic?
Of course, all the blame does not rest on men. Another point the Blowhards make is that many women nowadays "aren't lesbians but they don't like men." In other words, they view modern men as little more than ornaments as well. It's like an arms race—the less men find women worth their time as conversation partners and mysterious, fascinating, necessary Others, the less women will care to see the same in men.