When she shoved the man, who was six inches taller than she was, off of her, he responded, “My, aren’t we feisty tonight.”
When he came toward me, I grabbed him by the shoulders and pushed him down to the ground. I held onto his shoulders and climbed on top to straddle him. He started thrashing side to side, but I was able to hit him with a closed fist, full force, in the face.6
A crowd, mostly men, gathered—shocked that Bruen was fighting back. Her assailant got up and ran off, yelling at her. Bruen screamed at him and to the crowd, “You just assaulted me. . . . He just assaulted me.” But instead of helping her, the group of men gathered in closer.
Another man, around 6’1”, approached me and said, “You think that was assault?” and he pulled down my tube top, and grabbed my breasts. More men started to cheer. It didn’ t matter to the drunken mob that my breasts were being shown or fondled against my will. They were happy to see a topless girl all the same.7
Eventually, Bruen broke free. What struck me about this story—other than the crowd’s horrific, but not shocking, response—was that it’s a perfect example of how women are punished for transgressing the gender norms that are so integral to the purity myth. Bruen, who presumably did what one should do when being attacked—fight back—was assaulted because, as she says, she was “breaking out of the mold” that expects women to be docile victims. Fighting back, after all, isn’t ladylike—it isn’t pure.
The same culture of masculinity that breeds femiphobia and the purity myth enables men to do near unimaginable amounts of violence to women (let’s not forget Chapter 7) or, as in this case, cheer as violence is being committed. When women’s sexuality is imagined to be passive or “dirty,” it also means that men’s sexuality is automatically positioned as aggressive and right—no matter what form it takes. And when one of the conditions of masculinity, a concept that is already so fragile in men’s minds, is that men dissociate from women and prove their manliness through aggression, we’re encouraging a culture of violence and sexuality that’s detrimental to both men and women.
CRASHING THE GATE(KEEPERS)
If you want to see the purity myth in action, popular men’s magazines and websites are a great place to look. (They’re not always for the faint hearted, however.) For example, AskMen.com, an online men’s magazine that claims to have seven million readers a month, published an article in 2008 titled “Training Your Girlfriend.” It revealed perhaps a little too much about the way in which men are taught to view the women in their lives: When you first start dating a new girlfriend, you want to be on your best behavior. Sure, you want to make a good impression, but what you’re really doing is catering to her to get sex. The problem is, the power base shifts to her right from the outset and she knows it. She’s in charge of access to the zipper and she counts on you bending over backward to gain entry. So she’s got you.8
The piece goes on to “help” men get out from under the sexual thumb of women, using traditional dog-training tricks as a guide.cy
The notion that women are the sexual gatekeepers and men the potential crashers is widespread not just in the virginity movement, but in mainstream American culture. The idea is that women are supposed to do all they can to limit men’s access to female sexuality (and women themselves, really), and men are meant to do all they can to convince women otherwise. This sets up a sexual dynamic that assumes women don’t want to have sexcz and therefore need to be convinced to do so—and that this “convincing” is a natural part of seduction. But too often, underlying this model, what is called “seduction” is actually coercion.
Take a 2007 online article from Details that asked readers, “Is it OK to Demand Anal Sex?” In addition to having a jarring headline (when is it ever okay to demand anything sexually from a partner?), the article quoted men who had “convinced” women to have anal sex—which, according to the reporter, is more attractive than vaginal intercourse because “it’s a harder-to-reach goal.”9
One young man, Josh, age thirty, told Details, “For most of my friends, it’s sort of a domination thing . . . basically getting someone in a position where they’re most vulnerable. But it’s not like girls are ready for it—it’s something they do when they’re really drunk.”10
Not “ready for it” speaks volumes. As does twenty-nine-year-old Albert’s charming commentary on the subject: “Ideally, every girl is a disgusting pig who wants it.”
Men’s joy is in domination, a “harder-to-reach goal,” and in giving women something they’re not ready forda—and when women acquiesce, they’re “disgusting pigs.”db
Naturally, a selection of articles doesn’t epitomize the full spectrum of straight men’s sexual perspectives on women. But these pieces absolutely shed light on what is considered acceptable—and even lauded—male sexuality.
Author Michael Kimmel reveals in his book Guyland: The Perilous World Where Boys Become Men that this kind of sexuality—the point of which is to revel in dominance and “seduction,” which can become predatory—is par for the course among young men. And it’s not just what’s defining their sexuality, it’s what’s defining them as men.11
The time-honored way for a guy to prove that he is a real man is to score with a woman . . . . The problem, however, is that for guys, girls often feel like the primary obstacle to proving manhood. They are not nearly as compliant as guys say they would like them to be.12
Kimmel paints a dark picture of young manhood in the United States, where porn is aplenty because it can’t say no and where men will do anything to “convince” women to have sex—whether that means lying to her, trying to get her as drunk as possible, or even raping her.
One young man, Bill, tells Kimmel how he knows it’s “not PC and all,” but that he has pushed girls’ heads down on him when he wants to receive oral sex, and that he once dragged a passed-out drunk woman to his room and had sex with her.
When she sort of came to a little bit, she was really upset and starting crying and asked why I had done that. I think I said something like, ‘because you were so pretty’ or some bullshit, but really it was because, well, because I was drunk and wanted to get laid. And she was, like, there.13
What’s more terrifying than the assault Bill perpetrated is the fact that he doesn’t recognize it as such—he just thinks it wasn’t “PC.” But in an interview about Guyland, Kimmel clarified that he doesn’t believe that this is what young men are naturally like; it’s just what’s expected of them: “As if guys are biologically programmed to be rapacious predatory beasts. I think that’s ‘male bashing’—and sets the bar far too low. I believe that guys can be men—ethical, responsible, and resilient. . . . ”14
So do I. But while men’s natures are being insulted by a code of masculinity that sees them as little more than walking dicks, it’s women—like Bruen and Bill’s victim—who are paying the bigger price.
What’s more, positioning women as naturally nonsexual and men as innately ravenously sexual sets up not only a dangerous model that allows for sexual violence and disallows authentic female sexual expression, but also further enforces traditional gender roles—the main objective of the purity myth.
PURE MANLINESS
As much as the virginity movement is based on the idea that a woman’s worth is dependent on her sexuality, it’s also mired in the belief that traditional masculinity is superior and its preservation is necessary. In fact, the movement is so concerned about maintaining the masculinity status quo that it’s staging an imaginary backlash.Organizations, pundits, and purity-pushing academics are up in arms about the supposed feminization and destruction of American men. And while a national crisis regarding masculinity is undoubtedly happening, it has nothing to do with feminization—hypermasculinity and femiphobia are hurting men. But questioning these norms means disrupting the gender power balance, something the virginity movement just won’t have.
James Dobson, evangelical Christian leader and founder of the power-house organization Focus o
n the Family, is at the forefront of the movement to keep “masculinity” traditional. In fact, the entirety of Dobson’s advice about raising boys, manliness, and fatherhood is that old-school norms about “boys will be boys” are part of the natural order—and he resents anything that calls that notion into question.
In his book Bringing Up Boys, Dobson drives the point home again and again that “boys are different from girls.”dc
... Haven’t you heard your parents and grandparents say with a smile, “Girls are made out of sugar and spice and everything nice, but boys are made of snakes and snails and puppy dog tails.” It was said tongue-in-cheek, but people of all ages thought it was based on fact. “Boys will be boys,” they said knowingly. They were right.
But Dobson’s definition of what boys, and men, are is based completely in femiphobia and oppositional definitions. In a 2004 letter to Focus on the Family supporters, Dobson asked, “What does true masculinity look like?” His answer was “the physiological and emotional characteristics of a typical male are dramatically and intrinsically different than those of the typical female.”15 Men are simply un-women.dd But he doesn’t stop there. Manhood isn’t simply about being different from women; it’s about being better than they are.
In Bringing Up Boys, Dobson relays an anecdote about his son’s “clearly identifying with [his] masculinity.”
[A]s our family prepared to leave in the car, Ryan would say, “Hey, Dad. Us guys will get in the front seat and the girls will sit in the back.” He wanted it known that he was a “guy” just like me. I was keenly aware that he was patterning his behavior and masculinity after mine. That’s the way the system is supposed to work.16
It’s no surprise then, that Dobson blames “radical feminism” for supposedly attacking traditional masculinity. And he’s not alone. Other virginity-movement cohorts are also bemoaning its end and blaming its demise on the women’s movement.
Kathleen Parker,de columnist and author of Save the Males: Why Men Matter, Why Women Should Care, for example, is certain that American men are in dire straits—they’re mocked on television shows as bumbling dads and missing out on career opportunities because of “Take Your Daughter to Work Day.” They don’t live as long as women because of pesky programs that raise money for breast cancer, and are being increasingly feminized by an education system that won’t just let “boys be boys.” Parker’s world is one where feminists, who keep insisting that men and women are equal,df have socially castrated men. (Naturally, Parker has an obligatory chapter on The Vagina Monologues.)
Her suggestion? “[A]cknowledge that men are not women and boys are not girls.”17 And, of course, put an end to the “radical feminism” that Parker believes is causing this gender confusion and male feminization.
Janice Shaw Crouse, of Concerned Women for America, agrees. She wrote in 2004, “[T]here is a concerted effort to mainstream the feminization of boys. We are familiar with the radical feminists’ attempts to teach girls to act like the guys.”18
Like Parker and Dobson, Crouse is concerned with maintaining gender norms: “[T]here is definitely nothing wrong with masculinity (boys being boys and men being men) or with femininity (girls being girls and women being women).”19
Something about the fact that the language Crouse uses is nearly identical to Parker’s and Dobson’s is so telling—and so simplistic. None of these writers are making a real argument for a specific kind of masculinity, other than one that calls for men to not be like women. In fact, all of the people who claim to be so concerned about men’s decline don’t offer anything in the way of advice, outside of bashing women’s social and political progress.
Take Harvey Mansfield, perhaps one of the best-known proponents of traditional masculinity and purveyor of feminization fear. A professor of government at Harvard University and author of Manliness,dg Mansfield argues that the decline of society—and of all-important manliness—is due to women’s desire for equality and success outside of the domestic sphere, which he sees as disruptive to the gender binary system.
Women today want to be equal to men, equal in a way that makes them similar to, or virtually the same as, men. They do not want the sort of equality that might result from being superior at home if inferior at work. They have decided that work is better than home.20
Women can’t want to be like men, because that would mean that men are like women—a femiphobic’s nightmare if there ever was one. And, like that of most purity-myth proponents, Mansfield’s argument doesn’t stop at women’s engagement in the public sphere; it inevitably always comes back to the bedroom.
In all of the media and virginity-movement hoopla concerning girls’ supposed promiscuity, one of the main talking points is a fear of women’s “becoming like men” sexually. Mansfield, of course, is no exception. In a 2005 lecture, he blamed “radical feminism,” which, he said, seeks to “lower women to the level of men” in terms of sexual behavior.21
“By the age of thirty, you see men who are used to getting free samples [of sex],” he said.
And like the men of Kimmel’s Guyland, the men in Mansfield’s world believe that women exist simply for male pleasure. In the same lecture, Mansfield noted that when “women play the men’s game . . . they are bound to lose.
“Without modesty, there is no romance—it isn’t so attractive or so erotic.” dh22 (Why young women—to whom he is specifically referring—would care about what Mansfield thinks is “erotic” is beyond me.)
In order to please men like Mansfield, and to be accepted by women like Parker and Crouse, women need to be “women”: passive, chaste, and accepting of male dominance and superiority.
So while virginity-movement operatives continue to promote the idea that men and masculinity are somehow in trouble, it’s clear that what’s really endangered are the patriarchal standards that they’re so attached to. That’s why feminism is always to blame. These books, articles, and arguments aren’t a defense against an assault on masculinity—they’re an offensive attack on progressive social change that allows women to be complex human beings, rather than purity-princess automatons.
MOVING TO WARD A HEALTHY, SEXISM-FREE MASCULINITY
In his 2004 essay titled “Picture Perfect” author Douglas Rushkoff wrote about why he, as a young man, wanted to “go steady” with a girl: “It had nothing to do with her, really. Her purpose was merely to assert and define my masculinity. . . . She had only to prove I was not a fag.”23
Women cannot continue to be the markers by which men measure their manliness. And while the myth of sexual purity is primarily about women, it’s impossible to dismantle the notion that women’s worth is connected to their sexuality without also dismantling a conception of masculinity that is reinforced so fully by that myth. We’re only as pure or impure as men deem us to be—they’re the ones with that power to define and control.
Masculinity and manhood need not be built on this foundation of sexism and gender binaries that the virginity movement is so desperate to hang on to. In fact, some American thinkers—including Kimmel and Robert Jensen (mentioned in Chapter 4)—dedicate their careers to this belief.
But the voices we’re more likely to hear—those that appear in syndicated columns, control pop-culture mediums (like commercials), or run multimillion-dollar organizations—are the ones that continue to advance ideals about men and masculinity that are unhelpful, regressive, and dangerous.
Axe body spray (a noxious cologne whose lad-based marketing often peddles in sexism), for example, developed a TV ad campaign called “Nice Girls Gone Naughty.” These commercials feature women becoming sexual predators, harassers, and rapists after smelling Axe spray; dressed as cheer-leaders, nurses, and Girl Scouts, these “nice” girls appear in a lineup for having sexually assaulted the men in the commercials.
This campaign comes to mind because it trumpets what male sexuality is supposed to be—“naughty,” aggressive, criminal—and turns it on its head. We’re supposed to laugh and find the
idea of women assaulting men hilarious (we’re also supposed to be turned on by virginal girls gone horny for cheap body spray). But all this campaign does is use modern masculinity to make light of actual violence against women.
And this is why there’s a real sense of urgency when it comes to doing something about the current state of masculinity. American culture recognizes that something is brewing when it comes to “manliness.” It’s a new antifeminist backlash of sorts, one that claims it’s not about women at all, but about maintaining manhood. And whether it’s an Axe or Snickers commercial, a book or an organization, other people are framing this conversation, and incorrectly.
It’s difficult to question gender norms—especially perhaps for men, who simultaneously suffer and benefit from them. And I have no doubt that men suffer greatly under the model of masculinity that’s ascribed to them; it’s just not a natural state to enforce for anyone.
In an article called “The High Cost of Manliness,” Robert Jensen outlines the restricting nature of what being a man today involves—a never-ending struggle for dominance.
No one man created this system, and perhaps none of us, if given a choice, would choose it. But we live our lives in that system, and it deforms men, narrowing our emotional range and depth. It keeps us from the rich connections with others—not just with women and children, but other men—that make life meaningful but require vulnerability.24
It’s because I care so much for the men in my life that I advocate a re-thinking of masculinity. It’s also because I want a better world for women. Because as long as men are disconnected from women, as long as they’re taught that we’re what not to be, and as long as they believe that the only way to define themselves is through women’s bodies and sexuality, the purity myth will live on.
The Purity Myth Page 15
