Male-Wussification

For an individual to believe that masculinity is in danger stems from the idea that all men need to look, think and feel like one type of masculine alpha male. In the Fox News interview about Nick Adam’s book “American Boomerang”, the concept of ‘male-wussifying’ comes as the main thesis of the book. Adams believes that this is the start of a new trend that sees masculinity in danger because of the popularization of feminism. For me the real question that arises from this video is, why do men have to be held of to this standard of always being extremely masculine?

 

In America the alpha male is definitely held to the highest standard of any other country in the world because it means being a big figure with tons of muscle that’s why when Adams compares wrestling with crocodiles to wrestling with lattes its easy to see why he thinks that the two are opposites. Adams sees lattes as a feminine drink, probably because of the name, and compares wrestling crocodiles to an extremely masculine activity that only the manliest of men could go about doing. This is the best example of the standard Adams is holding all men to but this also references the way that masculinity is socially constructed to make it seem like only the strongest man survives. As we saw in class the media constructs these values through many different advertisements whether it’s workout apparel or an ad for a protein bar. It is constantly being fed to males all over the world, which creates a society where men think that in order to be successful they have to be extremely masculine. Even many women will hold men up to these high standards as well just because they see these advertisements as well.

 

Unfortunately, the interview becomes more and more ridiculous as the interviewer Elizabeth Hasselback relates Adams thesis to feminism. To think that the two are related is the first of many mistakes that Adams makes regarding masculinity. There is no way that men can be made less masculine by the ideals of feminism not only because feminism doesn’t try to make men less masculine but also because feminists are not worried about the masculinity of men. Adams talks about feminism in such an oppressive light that was probably offensive to many of the viewers. He also completely disregards every gender other then men and women making it seem like we live in a world where there are only two genders.

 

Throughout the whole interview Adams tone and statements seem very old and conservative which can also be representative of Fox News as a company. They have been known to always have a certain type of person that has a right wing bias and Adams fits perfectly to what they are going for as a News network. His views are so old and dated that it seems like the interview could have been held over 60 years ago where the roles of men and women were so different. Many of his statements seem so dated because he talks of a time where men need to masculine and women need to be feminine.

The Problem With Lattes

I was recently watching the interview video between Fox News’ Elisabeth Hasselbeck and author Nick Adams, as they discussed ‘masculine’ men and their recent decline in our society. I played the video aloud, and my roommate asked me: “What year is this from?” Indeed, it would be easier to understand the views in this video had it been aired ten or twenty years ago, when views on gender roles were younger and more immature. She was just as shocked as I was when she heard that this interview took place merely weeks ago. In our progressive society, we are slowly beginning to break down these ‘man’ and ‘woman’ moulds that we have created in the past few centuries. This new attitude comes with us learning about the large range of sexualities and genders that people identify as. It is no longer man or woman, heterosexual or homosexual. These binary ideas have been reformed, and extended to include everyone. However the views that Nick Adams holds are still found in our society, and these binary views hinder us from moving forward.

In the video, Nick Adams explains the problem with feminine men. ‘Feminine men’ include all men who are not assertive, aggressive, and who do not perpetuate male stereotypes. Homosexuals for example, are stereotyped as feminine, and so do not fall into Adams’ category of ‘manly men’. Adams even singles out metrosexuals, who are men that show more care in their physical appearance. When asked how we could teach boys to be boys, Adams states that we can “…try and educate everybody about the importance of being a manly man, as opposed to being…a metrosexual”. These men pose no threat to Adams himself, or others, so why feel hostile towards them? In her book Homophobia: A Weapon of Sexism (1988), Suzanne Pharr holds that the hatred of homosexual men is rooted in the fear that any men who do not maintain hegemonic masculinity, “bring down the entire system of male dominance and compulsory heterosexuality”. To Adams, these feelings that some men are ‘inadequate’ extend to homosexuals and metrosexuals because of their stereotypes. Adams shows a dangerous mindset: that all feminine men are ‘different’ and ‘separate’. This alienation and ostracisation is what leads to extreme homophobic and sexist views that may lead to violence against non-straight males, and all females. It also leads to the ideas that heterosexual males are dominant above all – winners among losers – and that they have an underlined dominance and responsibility to ‘lead’.

Nick Adams continues to glorify masculinity, and goes so far to say that “Wimps and Wussies deliver mediocrity, and men win”. If manly men are not “wimps and wussies” then who is? Feminine men? And if it is feminine men who are “Wimps and wussies” does this mean that feminine women also fall into this category? We see here that Adams has divided people into two categories, ‘wimps and wussies’ and ‘winners’: the ‘winner’s category holding only manly men. This of course excludes homosexual men who are stereotyped as ‘feminine’, and even FTM transgender people, who would still fall into a ‘feminine’ category due to their biological origins as women. While discussing the ‘problem’ in Australia, Adams states that men have gone from “wrestling with crocodiles to wrestling with lattes”. To Adams, wrestling with crocodiles was the epitome of ‘manliness’ – bravery, aggression, danger. By “Wrestling with lattes”, Adams may refer to the stereotypical image of ‘feminine’ men – urban, well-dressed men with a latte in one hand. The lattes become a symbol of feminism, as they are simply not a symbol of aggression. Is there something feminine about coffee? No, but there is nothing particularly masculine about it, which for Adams, is the problem.

Elisabeth Hasselbeck prompts Nick Adams about feminist’s role in this new ‘demonization’ of masculine men, and Adams agrees that Feminism has delivered angry women and feminine men. Adams states that “It emerges from this mindset that a lot of women have unfortunately bought into. This destructive idea that men prevent them from being able to achieve their goals”. In one statement, Adams undermines women as people who are unable to achieve their goals (for their own reasons), and choose to blame men. These words perpetuate the idea that feminists are man-haters, when they are just fighting for equality. They have no intention of squashing masculinity, but simply want equal treatment and opportunities for women. Adams states that the ‘problem’ is that we are trying to neutralize behaviours, so that men and women show the same non-feminine and non-masculine attitudes. This is incorrect – what we try to do now, is to remove the ‘man’ and ‘woman’ moulds, so that people can choose their behaviours and actions themselves, with no fear of being forced into a stereotyped box that does not represent them. Adams ignores that gender ‘norms’ are socially constructed, and focuses on the idea that society is trying to deconstruct them. These views of masculinity do not free men as Adams believes, but cages them. They are unable to show emotion, fear etc., as they fear being labelled as a ‘feminine’ men, by people such as Adams. It alienates men who do not fit into the role. This mould of course, is only for white males. An aggressive white male is ‘manly’, however if a black male was equally as aggressive, they would be a danger, a threat. When Adams talks about manly men, he is really talking about manly white men, and leaves out people from all other races.

Despite what Adams says, we need to continue to allow men to be feminine. Nick Adams is one of the few men who fit the ‘man’ mould, and so may lament the deconstruction of it, however we must look towards the countless other people who do not fit these moulds, and whose lives may be bettered as we begin to accept all people as individuals. It is up to each individual whether or not they choose to wrestle with crocodiles, or with lattes.

 

Feminists Preventing Men From Wrestling Crocodile’s

Nick Adams is the author of the book “American Boomerang”. In this book he argues, from “an Australia perspective”, that the men of America are not able to maintain the power position that America has had on the world stage. He makes the case that American values are “conservative” values and must remain so in order to keep from slipping into mediocrity. So what is pushing America from the dominating power to descending nation? According to Adams, Feminism.

Feminism is often associated with negative connotations in today’s society. The stereotype’s surrounding a “typical” feminist often involves an image of a butch, angry, man-hatting, lesbian. It is unfortunate to say that this is the image that Nick Adams reinforces in his interview with Elisabeth Hasselbeck and Clayton Morris on Fox News. The beginning of the interview starts of with a clip from a movie scene with Jennifer Aniston and Vince Vaughn having a fight over doing dishes. Aniston’s character is upset with Vaughn’s because he will not help her do the dishes. The scene ends with Vaughn responding to Aniston “why would I want to help you do the dishes”. The camera then pans onto Hasselbeck and Morris laughing over the actors dialogue. This immediately sets the stage for the outline of Adams point; that it is ridiculous to even question gender roles. Men and women are destined to play a certain character in society based on their biological sex and therefore their socially constructed gender. Adams begins his interview addressing all men, specifically in Australia and America, by noting that men are on the decline because they have gone from “wrestling crocodiles to wrestling lattés”, an analogy Adams uses in order to carry across the point that men are becoming more ‘feminine’.

Since the moment we are born we are assigned a gender role based on our biological sex. If we have the sex of a male we must act strong, brave, and dominant. If we are born with female genitals than we are considered to be gentle, passive, delicate and sweet. These gender roles and stereotypes are constantly reinforced for us as we grow up. It starts of with a baby blanket in the hospital, blue or pink. As we mature it transitions into the toys we are given to play with (like Barbie’s and hot wheels), the clothes we wear, and even the products that are marketed to us, i.e. Bic pen for women. In Adam’s interview he mentions that America is on the decline because American men are not being “men”. The fact that Adams is able to use language like this and there is a general consensus of what a “man” is proves that there is a dominant image in our society of what a “man” is. He later goes on to encourage that the downfall of the stereotypical, socially constructed ideology of a “man” is on the decline due to feminism. It is in Adams view that feminism only produces two types of people: angry women and feminine men. What Adams is suggesting here is that feminism switches gender roles and that this is bad for America. By assuming that there are specific gender roles that are too be played and deeming it ‘wrong’ for men and women to act anything other than there assigned gender, Adams is making it impossible for people to stay true to their feelings. Adams has isolated a wide range of people by claiming that there is only one type of man and insinuating there is one type of women. Adams says in his book,

“All aspects of male culture have been called in to question. Whether it’s gathering around on a Sunday afternoon to watch football with a few friends, whether it is going to the range and shooting some guns, whether it is just being a male….” 

This is the image of a male that society has presented to us constantly. In marketing and advertising it is easy to distinguish a male product because it is usually represented by an overload of sports and violence (and sexualized women). This idea that all men have the same common interests, again, isolates any other possibility of what a biologically determined male can be, that is socially approved, in society.

It is important to also note positionality in this interview. Nick Adams is a heterosexual, white, upper-middle class, male. He is the ultimate beacon of “white privilege”, otherwise known as the privilege of invisibility.  Adams notes, that it is “Hard to be a man in todays society”, due to the fact the feminists are constantly campaigning for equal rights. Adams is coming from an extremely privileged standpoint and therefore his views and experiences are not relatable to those who do not come from “white privilege”.  When Adams agrees that men cannot be “men” today because they are demonized, he is referring to a ‘real’ man, as for example himself. Because the image of a white, heterosexual, male who enjoys sports, women and beer is the dominant image of what a man is, or should be, this is what he has hegemonically been raised to believe is a man. In recent years we have seen media begin to diversify a little, increasing different sexual orientations, positionalities, and social expectations. Although society is increasing its intersectionality the dominant image that creates “white privilege” remains.

One last concept to note is the article title in itself; “Elisabeth Hasselbeck really asked this about feminism”. This title puts the onus of Adams actions and comments on Hasselbeck. Not only this article, but the majority of articles that are written about Adams interview with Hesselbeck, and her co-interviwer Clayton Morris,  but many have titles that are focused on Elisabeth. I think its important to realize that authors have been assuming a large majority of blame on Hasselbeck and not so much the actual theory-maker, Nick Adams. I can’t help but question why a women opposing feminism is more intriguing than a man? This brings us back to the point that not only our physical appearance but our thoughts and emotions should are socially determined.

Adams has reinforced a message that feminism has been fighting for years. Now in third wave we have the capacity to see past his traditionally conservative values and move toward a future that involves all aspects of intersectionality.

National Security Crisis: De-Masculinized Men and Feminists Everywhere!

By: 14lee

Differentiating between fact and fiction is one way in which news reporters present material honestly and objectively as possible. However, entire news stations have become structured into liberal or conservative platforms. The reporters nevertheless continue to gather facts, but the stories being documented support only one view; that being whichever ideas and principles best suit the network’s platform. Elisabeth Hasselbeck and her Fox news co-anchor Clayton Morris quickly turn their interview with author Nick Adams into a one-sided conversation that is heavy in emotion and urgency while weak in actual facts. They presume that one man’s urgency of opinion is indeed an entire world’s issue. The interview is an attempt at cultural hegemony; using dominantly white, upper class citizens in America to present their view of the world as reality so that all other classes and race perceive it as ‘common sense’. The goal of Adams’ book is to strongly encourage readers to fulfill the duties of their socially constructed genders in order to eradicate feminine behaviour and features in men. He idealizes a world of black and white, where men can only be manly and only women can be feminine. His binary thinking leaves out all other considerations of alternatives such as intersex individuals or gender-queer persons, who do not identify as either male or female, but move along a continuum between the genders.

It was especially striking when Morris referred to Adams as a “foreigner” at the beginning of the interview because it instantly set up a theme of ‘us versus them’; where the social norms set up in America are assumed to be a general consensus on how the rest of the world should work.  Groups who present an alternative view are therefore criticized or ignored, except for Adams, who presents an Americanized perspective of the world. This “foreigner” may actually act to reaffirm Americans about their own culture because a foreign country shares their same values. America is all about winning, and according to Adams, the only ‘winners’ are masculine men who can hunt, fight and take on positions of power and leadership. Although not directly stated, I believe that Adams is referring solely to white people, in that other racialized males are not perceived to be ‘winners’ by American standards, but are grouped with both men and women of all races. He presents a white, androcentric worldview whereby only white, masculine men are ‘the norm’ and all women, as well as racialized men are considered ‘the others’.

The author bullies and belittles men who are not masculine; calling them “wimps” and “wussies” and implying that they are a disgrace to America for being weak. It is difficult for audiences to disagree with these statements as both the Fox news anchors encourage and support Adams throughout the interview. Elisabeth Hasselbeck even supports Adams when he blames feminists for “attacking” men by preventing them from fulfilling their goals and, in turn, causing men to become more feminine. To Adams, women are catalysts to this breakdown of manhood and must be stopped. For men to reach their full potential as a ‘man’, women apparently need to comply with their socially constructed gender roles. Rather than acting to equate rights and opportunity between men and women, Adams is promoting and amplifying the need for further divergence between the genders. Ramping up gender stereotypes appears to be his solution for the de-masculinized men crisis; sorting men and women into distinct groups from birth and maintaining these roles until death. Such binary thinking is dangerous because it praises stereotypes and relies on ignorance to create narrow-minded perspectives of gender.

Further into the interview there is noticeable discrepancy within Morris’s question of how to teach ‘our boys’ to be boys and ‘our girls’ to be girls, without fitting them into stereotypes. Teaching children to behave appropriately for their gender is stereotyping them into specific gender roles. Men hold the power and women are simply bystanders to male glory. He seems to be combating women by grouping them all into the category of “angry feminists” as if any opinion from a woman should immediately be disregarded as heretical. His book is released into a society where women are becoming more equal to men in the areas of education, career, and salary and are therefore becoming legitimate competitors to men. His book may be in direct response to increased equality between the genders as it threatens male dominance in society. Alternatively, he may simply be blaming women because they have always had strong, traditional stereotypes that make them out to be ‘weak’ and very feminine; making them easy and believable targets for the act of feminizing men around the world.

However, this whole ‘crisis’ may stem from an increase in gender ambiguity between men and women and boys and girls. The roles of women and men are becoming blurred. This is an uncomfortable fact for Adams even though many likely see this as progress towards a continuum model of gender; where there is no set number of genders or expectations for gender, but a diverse range of gender identity. Rather than embracing societal change of inclusivity, gender ambiguity is turned into a national security crisis for America and is subsequently blamed on women because femininity has always been known to stem from their gender.

It is sad to see that men like Adams are still trying to belittle women, and now men, into believing that being of the female or feminine gender type is a weakness, or infliction. White men who are not completely masculine are now expected to be targets of Adams’ cause; to be ridiculed and harassed because they are not ‘real’ men. If the dominant class of white men are being scrutinized, I could not imagine how men of other races would be treated if they did not display purely masculine traits. He is creating a social hierarchy where white, masculine men appear to rule and feminine men appear to be weak as they suffer from the attacks of feminist, white women. Racialized men and women are unaccounted for in this interview, as if their presence is insignificant. However, these men and women may suffer the brunt of Adams’ campaign to rid the world of de-masculinized men. Racialized women may be blamed more harshly for having husbands who act ‘too’ feminine, and these racialized men may suffer greater backlash when confronted by white masculine men. It is a confusing and completely backwards way of thinking that is not needed in a society that should be working towards equality and acceptance of all people and their individual identities.