Laura Vivanco at Teaching Me Tonight has an interesting post up tonight and there’s a piece that provoked an unexpected reaction from me. I was going to post a response, but then I realised what I say has little pretty nothing to do with the actual issue she’s addressing, plus it’s bloody long-winded, so I’m posting it here.
But please do read the last half of Laura’s post first (including Laura’s link to HQN’s article) to make sense of my rambling.
Note – this was written without revisions, so excuse those disjointed bits and grammatical messes.
I’m really uncomfortable with the idea of Men Without Mercy. It carries other negative implications.
I suppose because I still can remember men, like Gene Hunt of Ashes to Ashes, from the 1970s and 1980s who were obnoxiously, unapologetically and openly racist and bigot, along with a belief they had a right to do as they please without any consideration for the others; particularly those they deemed socially inferior.
Gene Hunt is a good representative of that type. I enjoyed Life on Mars, but Ashes to Ashes? Not so much. Gene is a typical British, excuse my language, berk of that era. He really does live up to his surname*. OK, I didn’t watch more than three episodes, but it was more than enough for me.
If that’s Harlequin’s idea of “Alpha”, they can keep it because I don’t like that type, based on my experiences. I suppose I’m just not particularly fond of 1970s- and 1980s-era Britain.
Granted, a HQN will feature a typical white couple who wouldn’t think – if any at all – about that aspect – so naturally, the admiration would be from those who may not think beyond “Alpha= hunky men who make absolutely no apology for being blunt, assertive and so decisive!”
I think men like him are exciting to heroines who don’t have to deal with the extra baggage. How would it be if, for instance, a woman of colour travels from 2010 to 1970s and meets someone like Gene Hunt? She’d probably have some awkward moments.
That’s related to an issue I have with “when men were men”. It represents probably a different – wholly negative and scary – imagery to me. If a 1980s-era man can do what he did to me (such as threatening to kick my “paki” head in; this when I was 12), then when I wonder what it’d be like for me to travel to that era as an adult, it’s an instant turn-off.
So all that admiration for men like Gene Hunt is something I can’t quite accept nor understand. You just know he was the sort that would casually refer people of minorities by racist/bigot slurs and plain won’t see anything wrong with it. He would refuse to apologise if he was called on it. But, you know, that’s okay because he’s a man’s man!
Yeah, I think it’s two issues I have with that HQN post: the glorification of wankers like Gene Hunt and the idealisation of “when men were men”. I think it’s simply a code for “when women didn’t have any responsibilities than an ability to look well, dress well, shag well, and breed well”. That’s what all this yen for “when men were men” is really about, don’t you think?
*Hunt rhymes with cunt. Hence ‘berk’, which is a family-friendly version of cunt. ‘Berk’ from Berkshire Hunt -> hunt -> cunt.
the idealisation of “when men were men”. I think it’s simply a code for “when women didn’t have any responsibilities than an ability to look well, dress well, shag well, and breed well”. That’s what all this yen for “when men were men” is really about, don’t you think?
I wonder if it might have something to do with sexual fantasies, in the same way that the bodice-ripper-style romances were apparently popular because women had rape fantasies. At least, that’s the explanation I’ve read, and if it’s true, then something similar could be going on with this kind of hero.
Oh, sorry. Clarification: I did mean in a sense of fantasy. Women who work full time – as career women or stay-at-home mothers – would occasionally have a fantasy of leading a life where they don’t have to do any more than LWDWSWBW.
In this case with “when men were men”, I am never sure exactly which type they mean:
a) men who make decisions without conferring with their wives or whatnot like most actually were in the old days, as in “follow me wherever I go without your need to know where we’ll go”. Like a captain and a foot soldier.
b) men who have absolute faith in his feelings or desires towards women, e.g. he’ll have her when he wants her, regardless how she may feel about him or his actions. I should add: rather, without men fearing the legal consequences.
And which is more appealing in the majority of fantasies? I simply don’t know.
Also, who – or rather, exactly what – are these men of “when men were men”? People have different ideas of what defines ‘Alpha’, but there is no link between that type of behaviour/personality and history.
How men behaved then is similar to men today, and the difference between then and now is a legal system. But even without the legal system, there were – and still are – men who wouldn’t “roughly handle” women, just as many as men who would then and today.
So I’m a little lost with the whole “when men were men” thing.
I’m a little lost with the whole “when men were men” thing.
Since I’m not a historian or a sociologist I’m just speculating here, but I think it’s a fantasy, like the Victorian belief in the days of old, when knights were bold and chivalrous. I rather suspect that the neo-Gothic versions of the knight in shining armour owe more to chivalric romances than they do to historical realities. The presence of dragons seems to me to be a bit of a giveaway
I think the past “when men were men” is likely to be an equally mythical time, created by modern people picking and choosing their facts and reconstructing the past to suit their sensibilities/preferences.