The Degradation of the Sexes

To begin with, for purposes of my argument I will assume that you watched the Super Bowl last week, or at least part of it (although I recognize that this may not be so, and is usually not so for me).  The Super Bowl is likely the one televised event of the year in which people actually watch/care about the commercials.  The reasons for this exposition of new, creative, and often funny commercials all at one time are self-evident from a marketing perspective, but it is enough to say that these commercials reach a far larger audience than the average set of commercials on just about any other program (especially in the TiVo and DVR age) and, because of the large and diverse viewership of the event, are in some ways indicative of society's self-image, or ideal image.  Because a great portion of this image is far from shocking or unique, I will not be focusing on a number of elements of this societal ideal which are also of a great concern.  However, in watching the game, I consciously noticed at least 5 or 6 commercials, clearly aimed at men, and therefore indicative of what men are perceived to want/be (or what society expects men to want/be), which were at the expense in some way of women or of the relationship between men and women.  Again, this in itself is not shocking in its content given the increasingly prominent stereotype of American men, especially in the context of football, but it was the fact that it was a message so shamelessly emphasized despite the far more universal and diverse demographic which the Super Bowl draws, including a significant number more women than might watch the average football game (which is not to say that a significant number of women don't already watch football games).

So, if advertisers can perpetuate this message so unashamedly to such a large number of women and men, it occurred to me that it has become a societal assumption that gender boundaries and gender roles remain fixed.  Worse yet, it reinforces the victimization of women which has become almost unilaterally accepted by women and men without either side perceiving it as such.

What do I mean by the victimization of women?  Many men would protest that they would never victimize women or use them in any way, and many women would argue that they do not feel victimized or used either.  Yet these same women would also profess certain insecurities about their self-image that they take for granted because it's been that way as long as they can remember, and these same men would admit that they frequently don't know how to get along with women in contexts outside of relationships or sex.  Despite the significant gains in women's rights in the past century, there remains a profound gender gap, but the underlying reality is more sinister than simple misunderstandings between the sexes.

The victimization of women is all around us, and as I have said, has become accepted.  Products are sold, not on their own merits, but by scantily clad models, each possessing society's accepted body image, an ideal which to fall short of means failure.  These products are many and varied, ranging from beer to domain names, and are targeted at men to the point where men find it completely normal.  A sexy woman partially stripping to sell a domain name is only a friendly message from Godaddy to men that this product is for them.

The problem, however,  is more than just the simple sexual victimization which itself goes far beyond television commercials and extends to cheerleaders, magazines, movies, and pornography.  Commercials and TV shows are just two places which drill into our collective consciousness that if the concept of separate public and private spheres for women and men is a thing of the past, the concept of social spheres is very much still in place.  Few of these media ever portray platonic relationships between men and women, or even the potential for similar interests.  The commercial which comes to mind is the one in which the 4 women walk into a secret room filled with shoes in the couple's house and begin screaming with excitement, while in the other room the men are similarly freaking out over the room filled with beer.  (This itself demonstrates an assumption that women are commercial creatures, who care only about shopping and more shopping, while men only care about football and beer.)

This is particularly troubling when it extends to the relationship between husband and wife, however.  In most portrayals of marriages (when they're not already portrayed as dysfunctional), the two have completely differing interests and social lives, and are rarely portrayed as being friends at all, much less best friends.  Any action a man takes to please his wife or compromise with her in some way is generally seen as a means of getting something he wants, whether it be a car (as with the one Super Bowl commercial) or sex or uninterrupted "time with the guys."  In a world where there is minimal male-female interaction (usually only in bed), it is small wonder that the sexes have such a difficult time understanding each other or coming together on common terms.  Not only is objectification the norm, it is embraced on both sides.

Women are taught from a young age that their most important attributes are their beauty and/or sex appeal.  This indoctrination is particularly concentrated in the pre- and early teen years, and by the time a girl is in her mid-teens, she frequently is obsessed with only two things: looking like the models and celebrities which are held up as the pinnacle to which a woman can aspire and getting an attractive boy.  The pressure of both of these things is enormous, and leads many women who feel they fall short in one or both of these categories to be plagued by a strong sense of inadequacy, fall into depression, become anorexic or worse, inflict harm on themselves, or even commit suicide.  Yet, few every complain about the pressure; it just is.  Most of these women fail to recognize their own beauty and dignity because society refuses to affirm it.  Pretty is insufficient.  Smart is irrelevant.  In objectifying women, society has made them believe that all they are is an object, so they try to make themselves the best object possible.  But an object is still only an object, and objects are discarded when they are no longer "useful."  When women begin to age and lose these qualities which they have regarded as all-important throughout their lives, many resort to all kinds of ways to look ever younger, instead of embracing who they are at that moment.  Old is also unacceptable, especially in an age when wisdom and experience are routinely mocked and scorned.

What may seem less obvious than the ways in which society strips women of their inherent dignity and worth is the way in which it also degrades men.  The question of "what makes a man" or what it is to be "manly" these days is itself a complex subject, worthy of its own discussion, but here I will only be concerned with this image in its relation to women.  Men now believe that to not treat women as objects is unmanly, uncool, weak, or effeminate.  Indeed, what is now "manly" has become very restricted in the popular image as well.  Emotion, integrity, fidelity, generosity, and so forth are rarely glorified, even if they are not always degraded.  While this is certainly not what men really are like in day to day life, the standard image of men is dictated by sex, beer, laziness, "toughness" and sometimes outright stupidity.  In relations with women, it is characterized by manipulation and a perception that women could never have any legitimate authority over them.

Men believe they are supposed to act a certain way, and the victimization is just part of this.  Instead of self-control or respect for self or others, debauchery is the norm.  Nobody says it explicitly, but one need only look around in the media, music, commercials, TV shows to see what attributes in men are praiseworthy.  Few men, if they think about what image we're really being sold, will find this accurate or desirable.  However, consistent indoctrination is indeed making it more and more prevalent in reality as well, as men strive to conform to societal norms, consciously or unconsciously.

As an aside, I am not naïve enough to believe that much of this is new.  I don't look to some bygone golden age and hold it up as an image of what has been lost.  But it is equally undeniable that there has never been such a dissonance between what people profess is the state of the sexes in relation to themselves and each other, and what is actually the case.  I also recognize that I am again making generalizations which are not universally applicable, but the generalizations are nonetheless useful to describe the whole.

Part of the reason for this lies in certain aspects of the feminist movement itself.  Some feminists in the 60s and 70s, in particular, became preoccupied with sexual freedom or "empowerment" as the ultimate goal for women, and the final barrier which inhibited them from equality with men.  Thus, the "sexual revolution."  There is much to be said on this subject as well, but I will focus on the notion of "empowerment," a buzzword which is too nebulous to be truly useful, and is usually reduced to a vague sensation of being free or equal or liberated, as if sexual repression were the key factor in the subjugation of women throughout history.  Yet, even in its vague expression, empowerment seems to be an empty concept, when it seems to have done the exact opposite.  Rather than being used to describe "free love" and other general ideas of uninhibited sex, "empowerment" is more frequently used to justify sexual liberation in areas of objectification, like pornography or strip clubs.  Some strippers believe that what they do "empowers" them in some way, but then fail to describe how.  Certainly, it gives them a power over men, but not likely the power they would like.  Sure, the men are entranced and aroused by what the woman is showing or doing, but in ogling their body and using the strippers selfishly for their own pleasure, they give nothing meaningful back to the women.  Indeed, they care nothing for the women whatsoever; they are merely objects, another sexy body.  They're not likely to be looking into their eyes, that's for sure.  Is that power?  Perhaps, of a certain kind.  Is that fulfilling?  I can't speak for them, but it seems to me that deep down, it wouldn't be.  And the millions of girls who are force-fed the images of what they need to be to be successful and happy before they even hit puberty, is that freedom?  No, it is enslavement.  Millions of beautiful girls are constantly self-conscious, constantly in need of male assurance, in need of sexual attention to confirm that they are, in fact, desirable like the culture wants them to be.  Is this empowerment? Is this equality?

The fact is that men and women need each other, and not just to procreate.  The sexes complement and complete each other; alone we are missing a great deal, and we become only part of who we can be.  And by this I don't mean on a relationship or spousal level.  I mean the daily interactions between men and women, which most members on both sides take for granted, but which are essential to our identity, even for those with the most notches in their belt.  But more importantly, each man and woman has a dignity and value independent of whatever image society places on them, and so few are aware of this.  Because, after all, our society runs on commercialism and consumption, and in order to make us consume more, we must be made to believe we are falling short of where we should be.  And if we're always falling short, we're always consuming more.  Lost in the bottom line, however, is the effect that this self-image crisis has on each American, woman or man.  An appeal to base instincts, and a liberating of them from all restraint in the name of freedom, sells, and it conveniently separates us and places us in easily-targetable demographic categories.  Welcome to America; freedom is expensive.