Masculinity in a Fun-house Mirror

I take a lot of pleasure in distorted/distorting reflective surfaces. The fun-house mirror is maybe the closest example of a reflective surface that distorts on purpose, but what I really enjoy is a good bit of metal encountered in the wild, which serves some more quotidian purpose, whose reflective properties seem more incidental. They catch you unawares, in unlikely places. Restaurants, airports, bus-stops. It doesn’t especially matter where you find them. You’re struck by an awareness of an image both yours and not. There’s a mouth I know, and maybe the hair too, but the eyes are stretched until they seem a foot long. I like that moving a few inches changes the image so radically, a slight shift in perspective yielding new distortions. It becomes a contemplative activity. The ability of light to reflect and refract in ways that depend on the medium doing the reflecting and refracting does a lot to give the lie to the supposed objectivity of our senses. It’s pretty easy to test for yourself. Visit your local pool or stream or fill your tub up with water and stick your arm in it. You know that your arm is straight, or maybe curved slightly, but now it seems to be going off at a rather pronounced angle.

I was prompted to reflect on reflection (and refraction) by the disconcerting revelation that Allen Frantzen has up on his website a series of essays about being a man that are summed up by three words: grab your balls. Lest anyone think I am simplifying his message about what it means to be a man, in his own words, Frantzen writes:

Like boxers, masculine men have to compete. … Or, as I put it every day, in three words: Grab your balls. Hereafter, GYB. These letters can also stand for “got your back,” but–in life–a man can have your back only if you have your balls, which is to say only if your life and your manhood are in your hands, not those of your wife or husband or girlfriend(s) or boyfriend(s).

For the most part, Frantzen’s website is virtually indistinguishable from 90% of the Men’s Rights blather that exists on the internet, even going so far as to adopt the Red Pill/Blue Pill language that is the trademark of some of the most toxic masculinity-first corners of the web. Why does this even matter? And why does it matter to me particularly? Because Frantzen is arguably the most important forerunner to the type of early medieval studies that I, and many other people of all genders, practice.

Frantzen was one of the first and most important voices to talk about same-sex desire in Anglo-Saxon England, and to talk about the importance of talking same-sex desire. He was at the forefront of a movement to bring theoretically savvy voices into a field (Anglo-Saxon studies) that was rigorously and rigidly philological and historical in scholarly practice and reactionary in politics. In Eileen Joy’s “Goodbye to All That: The State of My Own Personal Field of Schizoid Anglo-Saxon Studies,” Frantzen’s is the voice calling for a more inclusive, more exploratory Anglo-Saxon Studies:

Who, we asked ourselves, when gathering together the table of contents, would represent the younger generation most influenced by Frantzen’s call, in Desire for Origins, to develop a Beowulf studies that would “seek” its future “outside the Department of English and outside the rigid limits of language study, literary criticism, and history that contain them.”

It is distressing for young, theory-savvy Anglo-Saxonists to see Allen Frantzen behaving like a reactionary crank because we are conscious of the fact that our field has room for us because Frantzen was one of the people who fought for our place in the field in the 90s. We’ve read his Desire for Origins and Before the Closet, and assigned chapters from them to our students. For that matter, my theory class this semester is reading a chapter from Desire for Origins. It is doubly distressing because while Frantzen has a big name in Anglo-Saxon studies, he is not necessarily well-known outside of it (unless you study same-sex desire), and so we see our late-medieval colleagues dismissing his toxicity without any awareness of how important he was/is to the field. Frantzen has also been one of the most influential trainers of Anglo-Saxonists, people who are doing/have done exciting work on gender (Mary Dockray-Miller), digital humanities (Martin Foys), and ethnicity (Stephen Harris).

Of course, this trajectory didn’t come out of nowhere, and if it has become especially toxic in recent years, there were hints of it much earlier. His 1993 essay “When Women Aren’t Enough,” which appeared in a special issue of Speculum devoted to Studying Medieval Women: Sex, Gender, and Feminism, begins with these ruminations about his chosen title:

When I chose the title for this essay, I did not know that I was to be the volume’s only male contributor. As the token man, with no desire to speak for all men (many of whom would not choose me for the role in any case), I fear that I speak for them nevertheless. If women aren’t enough, for this volume or for feminist criticism, one essay by one man isn’t enough to explain why.

Of course, you don’t have to search very far back in the Speculum archives to see that the situation is more often reversed. The previous issue contains a grand total of no articles by women, and the issue before that only contains one.

One of the weirdest things about Frantzen’s essays about men now up is how stupid they are at times. It would be regrettable if he were only arguing for a premise I vehemently disagree with if it seemed like there was actually some argument behind it, but he seems to be inhabiting a fantasy world where women irrationally hate and want to destroy men for being men. In the essay entitled “How to Fight Your Way Out of the Feminist Fog,” he actually says the following:

Men are expected to give up safe places for women in emergencies, for example. Why? The survival rate for wealthy men on the Titanic (which sank in 1912) was 34%. The survival rate for the poorest women was 46%. Lifeboats left the ship with empty seats because men would not take them. The men who died, as Baumeister says, “were the patriarchs” (p. 163). These were the same kinds of men who would vote to extend voting rights to women (or did you think that women did that for themselves?).

That last sentence is just so bizarre. The Titanic sank on its way from Southampton to New York City in 1912. The 19th Amendment wasn’t ratified in the US until 1920. In the UK the Representation of the People Act 1918 gave some women the right to vote, but they wouldn’t get equal voting rights until 1928, and women like Emmeline Pankhurst had a hell of a lot more to do with it than the men who died on the Titanic, whose views on women’s suffrage I’m not going to speculate about. And that little parenthetical aside, so snide, insinuating as it does that suffrage was a benevolent gift from men to women. But it wasn’t. Denying the right to vote wasn’t some oversight that was swiftly corrected by the (masculine) powers that be as soon as it was pointed out to them, and equality wasn’t given to women by men.

What bothers me the most about Frantzen’s screeds is how toxic they are for any man who would take them seriously. He reads like someone who has mistaken a distorted image of masculinity in a fun-house mirror for the real thing. There’s not one way to be a man, any more than there is one way to be a woman, and oh my god why are we talking so much about my balls?! The only time I grab my balls is when I’m washing them in the shower. Frantzen has more desire to police what it means to be a man than any feminist I’ve ever met, and it’s just plain dispiriting. I have no desire to box or shoot guns or participate in any violent sport. I do enjoy violent books and movies, and my friends who most enjoy violent movies are almost all women. I was invited to watch Hobo with a Shotgun by a female former professor, and the biggest Jason Statham fan I have ever met was a quiet woman who owned two French bulldogs named Dawson and Pearl. I’m a man who would rather read H.D. than watch football, much less play football (although I do watch college basketball with a near religious fervor). The more I read Frantzen’s essays, the more I’m reminded of the Office’s hilarious parody of men teaching other men how to be manly in the form of Dwight Schrute, whose relentless policing of masculinity is parodically summed up by Jim Halpert as “bears, beets, Battlestar Galactica.” For Frantzen, the list apparently is balls, boxing, Beowulf, and the only reason early medievalists care about any of this is because of the important things Frantzen has said about the third thing in that list.

Advertisements

9 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

9 responses to “Masculinity in a Fun-house Mirror

  1. Hattie

    thanks so much for this! beautifully put.

  2. Yes, thank you for this!

    As you write, Frantzen’s remarks about the Titanic are bizarre, not only as you note for their careless disregard for dates, but it also struck me as strange that he reached all the way back to 1912 to find an historical moment to support his already weak argument, an attempt at which he failed. Moreover, his argument about men being women’s protectors is offensive on several levels. Not only do women often fall victim to male violence, but his insidious implication that women are less willing than men to protect other humans in emergencies is completely unfounded. And can we also acknowledge that “the patriarchy” is not comprised of “men” as a gendered category (it’s much more complex and pervasive than Frantzen’s overly-simplistic dichotomy implies) any more than “feminism” is comprised of women alone? — and he knows that. His argument wreaks of something far more sinister than ignorance: he’s reaching for an audience of the lowest common denominator (that of the uninformed reader) which, considering his education and his position in the academy, smacks of obstinate academic malpractice. Frantzen’s only sentence I can agree with is his second one: “Some men are so intimidated by feminism that they are afraid to develop a critical attitude towards it” — but I agree only in the sense that along with “disapproving,” “critical” can also mean “analytical.” If “some men are afraid” to be analytical about discourse, perhaps rather than feeding their fears, Professor Franzen should do what respectable academics do: help people overcome those fears by teaching them how to observe and assess rhetorical discourses.

    /end rant

    Thank you again, Dr. Buchanan.

    • Gwan

      Not only is it bizarre to reach so far back to illustrate the supposed fact that men are expected to die to protect women, if he’d researched his “data” a little more carefully, he would have come across a 2012 study from Uppsala University that “analyze[d] a database of 18 maritime disasters spanning three centuries, covering the fate of over 15,000 individuals of more than 30 nationalities.” And found that “[w]omen have a distinct survival disadvantage compared to men”. http://web.archive.org/web/20120417020732/http://www.nek.uu.se/Pdf/wp20128.pdf

      • Katharine Park

        I’m delighted to have the reference to the Elinder and Erixon article. It’s worth noting that it’s the work of two male authors, and that most or all of the people thanked in the acknowledgments are male as well, making it hard to dismiss as special pleading. If you’re interested, here’s the abstract:

        Since the sinking of the Titanic, there has been a widespread belief that the social norm of ‘women and children first’ gives women a survival advantage over men in maritime disasters, and that captains and crew give priority to passengers. We analyze a database of 18 maritime disasters spanning three centuries, covering the fate of over 15,000 individuals of more than 30 nationalities. Our results provide a new picture of maritime disasters. Women have a distinct survival disadvantage compared to men. Captains and crew survive at a significantly higher rate than passengers. We also find that the captain has the power to enforce normative behavior, that the gender gap in survival rates has declined, that women have a larger disadvantage in British shipwrecks, and that there seems to be no association between duration of a disaster and the impact of social norms. Taken together, our findings show that behavior in life-and-death situation is best captured by the expression ‘Every man for himself’.

  3. sleepercity

    Thank you!

  4. Thanks so much for providing useful and interesting historical context!

  5. Laura

    When I read the passages about men occupying dangerous jobs in Franzen’s bizarre post, I also couldn’t help but think of the countless women whose workplaces have been the home and who have in their “workplaces” been victim to domestic violence and murder. Franzen presents a version of masculinity that is not common in my circles (thank goodness) and that the men I know flatly reject. So disappointed in his rant. Thank goodness you and others are pushing against his misogyny.

  6. Pingback: January round-up – A Woman's Thoughts About…

  7. Colleen Devlin

    Having been among the first batch of graduate students to be admitted under Frantzen’s tenure at Loyola, I can only say “hallelujah.” I’ve held my tongue for something like 28 years. This story came my way out of the blue today, and wow. This was a good day. About damned time.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s