Game Over: what planning a wedding is to men

Now that we've gotten into media for women, the wedding industry has become a major topic. But why is it such a big deal? There's no doubt that women are more wedding oriented then men are. But the proposal itself is still up to the man. However, women typically, not always are in charge of the wedding/reception itself, while the man goes off and does whatever he wants. His only job is to pay for it. Or, his parent's job in one tradition which I still don't understand. Personally, what this tells me is that while a man gets to choose his wife, everything else is off limits and "girly." I don't understand this because if HE'S the one who wants to get married in the first place shouldn't he get more of a say in what goes on? Why can't it be equal on both sides? If women are expected to take charge of every last detail of "the most important day of her life," isn't that just saying, okay, after this HE gets to rule everything?


I decided to take a look at a book called GROOMOLOGY by Michael Essany, which was given to me by my fiance's mother after I proposed to her. Groomology is a book about what every (smart) groom needs to know before the wedding. In the introduction, Essany states "planning what will hopefully be the happiest day of her life can be the most emotionally taxing and physically exhausting experience of her lifetime." Okay, when I first became engaged everyone gave me the speech about how stressful it is and how much it changes the woman's behavior. I'm sorry to say, it does. Soon as she knows she's going to be marrying you, something CLICKS. And all that pressure that is put on them to have the happiest day of their lives becomes very stressful. What I'm wondering now that I'm taking this class is if that is because of something subconscious or if it is because of the constant media pressure women are exposed to. It could be biological female behavior or it could be a social construction, or both.  I do think it should be the happiest day of your life. Its a celebration of love, after all. But if your both in love with each other, the happiness should be 50/50. Granted, it shouldn't be all downhill from there. After all there is so much more to accomplish then marriage.

However, the author of this book has an approach to being a groom that I like. "Never again will attending the wedding be the marrying man's most pressing responsibility." In other words, you better help her out. A popular tradition is to have your Bachelor Party the night before wedding. Yeah, not a good idea.




Not all the pressure of marriage is put on women though. Men are expected to ask women to marry them, to be the lead in which step their relationship will take next. And if your over thirty and your not married people start asking questions. Are you gay? Whats wrong? Commitment shy? Yet at the same time marriage to a man is considered the ultimate subservience. The idea of marriage being a way for a man to rule over a household and be in charge of his wife is a little outdated nowadays. If your romantic, your weak. If you let her have a say in what YOU do, your whipped and can't stand up for yourself. I think of a quote from My Big Fat Greek Wedding. "If the man is the head of the household, then the woman is the neck and she can turn the head any way she wants."
I worked for a guy who's friends would ask him, "how's the boss?" meaning, "How's the wife doing?"  And most married men I've talk to will admit, its not about them anymore.

If equality between the sexes is ever going to be obtainable we need to change the way we view the American wedding. Weddings change things, that's a fact. But the traditions and symbols don't match up with dynamics of the modern day couple.  Oh, and if your thinking popping the question you should really read Groomology. It might just save you from Bridezilla.

Beauty and the Beast: what messsage does it send to boys and girls?

We all know the story of Beauty and the Beast. The version we are most familiar with is that of Disney. At first glance it might just seem like what it is, a fairy tale cartoon adaptation, which is what Disney does so well. But is there a message worth examining a little closer? It was the first animated film to me nominated for an Oscar after all. 

When I first was took a look at the movie (I was watching it with my girlfriend, don't judge me) I noticed how Belle is ridiculed in the little town she lives in for being so into books. This is clearly shown in the film's opening musical number "Little Town." What? Women can't read? Nowadays, it seems that more women read then men, at least when it comes to fiction. I read something recently that studies show more women read then men with an average of nine books a year versus five. I can't put my finger on why, but it seems like reading is considered to be unmanly nowadays, that you should instead watch an action movie. But since this is story book land set in what seems to be 1800's France, back when women weren't allowed to go to college, I can see how it would be considered strange for her to be such a bookworm. But this is BEAUTY and the Beast, so she is pretty good looking. Her name is "Belle" which translates to beautiful.

 At first I was thinking, okay, this movie is telling us that she needs to be more girly, more worried about keeping herself pretty and finding a handsome husband. But as the film went on I realized that it is trying to send a much different message to both young men and women. First of all, the premise of the story is that "The Beast," as he is referred to, was once a handsome young prince. He was extremely vain and proud of himself. When someone who appeared to be an old hag appeared at his doorstep asking for shelter from the rain he refused to help her. Turns out, she was a beautiful witch. She cast a spell on him that made him turn into a beast like man in punishment for his arrogance. In order to reverse the curse he has to make someone love him for who he is. 
Basically, the message here is love someone for whats on the inside, not whats on the outside. 

Male arrogance and focus on good looks are continually punished throughout, not just with the premise of the story but for example, the character Gaston, who is obsessed with marrying Belle.  Gaston is essentially a "man's man."
He's attractive, muscular with "with biceps to spare" and not to mention, "every inch of him's covered in hair." He represents the ideal man, complete with three groupies that swoon over him constantly during song. Yet somehow he can't get Belle to fall in love with him.

When Belle ends up in the Beast's castle, at first shes terrified by his appearance and lack of manners. He's stronger than an ox and meets every situation with anger and physicality, not unlike the action heroes of today, like one of my favorites, John Mclane. But all of these qualities don't do him any good. Why? Because he's fallen in love with Belle and no matter what he does he can't physically get her to fall back in love with him. So what must he do? Become tame.
  He has his castle servants, who have all literally turned into household objects, dress him and show him how to be polite, stand up straight like a man. He must learn good table manners and etiquette in order to win Belle over. What does he give her instead of good looks? Something Gaston, the manly man would never even think of. An enormous library.

What this says to girls is, you have the control. Yes, a man could physically force you into doing something you don't want to. There's no doubt that men have more upper body strength and are bigger then women. But, women have the power of influence. Belle is terrified of Beast at first, but eventually realizes she can counteract his anger with words. She refuses to let him keep her in the castle, that is, unless its on her terms. They form a stockholme syndrome-like relationship and the closer they get, the more Beast shows his emotions and how vulnerable he really is. Personally, I find Belle a better role model for girls then say, Snow White for example. Snow White needed a man to come rescue her from her sleep. Belle on the other hand, rescues Beast from his curse.

What it says to boys is a little different. Lets face it, sex sells. Want the cleavage? Trim yourself up and get some manners. Oh, and don't forget to show some emotion. Girls like to see you vulnerable every now and then. I actually think this is positive, even if subconsciously it's about sex. Instead of saying, okay, being muscular and arrogant is good in this case its a bad thing. In the end of the film Gaston, who is handsome, dies and Beast lives. So instead of rewarding the old version of masculinity, it punishes it. Beast, who has shown us his sensitive side is the one who gets the girl in the end. Then of course, the curse is lifted and what was inside that big, ugly beast? This guy: 
 



The idea that a woman could influence a man in such a way is indeed, a tale as old as time.

The UFC: still a male dominated world

 Mixed Martial Arts, known to most people as Ultimate Fighting is one of the most rapidly evolving and increasingly popular sports in the world. So why are women still not allowed in the UFC?

First of all, there's always been a link between the UFC and professional wrestling. The UFC has done everything in it's power to debunk the myth that it's just another version of wrestling. The first argument is always that it's real fighting, versus staged fighting. Does that mean that the certain things aren't fixed? Certainly not. They still have to make a spectacle out of it. But the violence is all real. They make it entertaining to the audience by having the fighter's talk down about each other before the fight. Or, simply discuss their game plane and their opinion. The interview creates the personality of the fighter. Whether or not he's cocky, whether he's gracious and humble, or, that maybe he's just confident enough to predict the outcome. This plays a role in how the audience's view of the fighter and who will route for him. Image is everything, but the outcome in the ring which is based upon skill will be the real test. It's one man against the other, trying to prove who's a better fighter.

 The UFC had to be very careful when one of the most famous professional wrestlers in the world decided to step into the mix: Brock Lesnar. Die hard UFC fans were not happy because of the image that it might bring.

In professional wrestling on the other hand, it's not just men. They put women into the mix. Is it bad to show that women can put up a fight against men? No. Martial arts debunked that myth anyway. But in professional wrestling, they show men not just fighting against women, but degrading them in such a way that it proves male superiority and heterosexism.

Other organizations such as WEC, Elite XC and Strikeforce have allowed women to compete in the ring. Of course, they only compete against other women. This makes sense, considering men and women's sports have always been separated. If men and women fought against each other in the ring, there would be an uproar among fans and among people in general.

Elite XC even had it's poster girl, Gina Carano who appeared in the recent movie HAYWIRE. There's no doubt that Carano is a great fighter with a record of 7-1. But why did Gina get more media attention then the woman who finally beat her, Cristiane Santos? Probably because if you Google Gina Carano's name, most of the images you get look like the one on the right:

Men on the other hand, mostly appear on the covers of muscle magazines. Hmm...
Not that a good portion of the men in the UFC aren't attractive. I could name plenty. But they aren't turned into sex symbols. Instead, they are made into something for other men to model themselves after. Ultimately, it comes down to the fan base. UFC is mostly watched by men. Most men don't like to see women get beat up. Not unless its by another women, but even then if its too real, too bloody, which the UFC is, for most men and its not as entertaining to watch. When the idea of bringing women into the UFC came up, president Dana White was adamantly opposed. "People don't like to see girls getting beat up," were pretty much his words. Seems like he doesn't have a problem with women in the UFC, that is, if it looks like this:

Being a White Male in America: what the F**** does it mean?

What does it mean to be a white male in America? The words ignorant, racist, sexist, macho and unintelligent come to mind. We think of the Anglo-Saxon, protestant image that our country was founded on. We think of Nascar  watching, cheap beer drinking rednecks. We think of working class baffoons that we enjoy laughing at on our nightly sitcoms. We think middle class, white priviliged and biased. These negative stereotypes are not only offensive, they are often true. Is this because of the portrayal the media makes, or is the media simply portraying something true?

Other races in America, such as African American, Hispanic, Asian and Middle Eastern all have their own social constructions of what it means to be a man and they celebrate these constructions here in the United States. There is no true tradition or definition besides the portrayals that the media show us and that we subconsciously mimic, on what being a white male in America is. America's version of what being a man is has become muddy and confusing.




There's always been the notion of violence when it comes to being a white male, as well as for men in particular. There is the belief that men have to be dominant in any situation. Whether dominant towards women, towards people of a lower class or towards people of a different skin color, pride and violence are almost always associated with being a white male. On the other hand, there is the idea of the white male as being more intelligent then others, therefore not needing to solve things with his fists, but with his intellect.
There is also the idea of manliness being associated with not caring for finer things in life. This idea is enforced by sitcoms where the white, working class husband is always represented drinking cheap beers, versus micro brews, as if trying anything better would be silly. Often times, they have little appreciation for art or for anything fancy. They are shown as loving simplicity versus complexity.

I find that this stereotype makes sense for men who work manual labor jobs or trade jobs, but not for working class men in general. Professors and most salesman are considered a part of the working class and they are expected to look presentable. I've known a number of men who don't work high income jobs but still hold themselves to high standards when it comes to fashion, art and food. The media has brought upon the term "metrosexual" to describe men like that. 

But even before men were openly gay in America, fashion was still a standard. If you watch the show Mad Men, you can see how during the 1950's and 60's men were expected to look presentable, clean cut and wear suits almost every day. Nowadays, if your male and hold yourself to this same standard, you are considered queer.






The emergence of gay men onto television hasn't helped this stereotype. With shows like Queer Eye For the Straight Guy, men are shown as knowing nothing about hygiene or fashion, while all the gay white men do. The emergence of gay characters onto prime time is of course important, but nearly all of them are white, while homosexual's in other races are often overlooked.

With all the different stereotypes and representations on television nowadays, what is the next generation supposed to look up to? There are also plenty of good stereotypes out there. If we supposedly learn how to be a man from our fathers, then the idea of being a good father is a stereotype I don't mind. The concept of being a father who does nothing but work and let the wife take care of the household is one that needs to be gotten rid of. The old ideas of having a good work ethic and Christian ideals, like being kind to everybody no matter what, need to be brought back into our regular thinking.

While there are so many things wrong with the image of the white male in America today, there is obviously nothing wrong with being working class, poor, gay, unfashionable or fashionable. But the truth is that we, as in white men, can do a lot better. 

Female Character Archetypes

We learned in class last week about how there are few roles for women over thirty-five, while men have a variety of roles available to them, pretty much no matter how old they get. It was also brought up to me that it seems there really isn't much of a spectrum when it comes to the personalities they play. Men have a variety of roles to play from action heroes, to nerds, to slackers, like many of the characters in popular comedies today.

With women, on the other hand, the archetypes are much more divided. It seems they are either portrayed as rough and tough femme' fatales, such as Lisbeth Salander in The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo or ditzy, cute "Zoey Deschanel" types, that become the male lead's love interest. Where are the in-betweens? It seems to me that women are more type cast then men are, at least when it comes to movies. It probably has something to do with the fact that most of the people writing these movies are men, therefore, their female characters become more on-sided, less complex then the male characters. The 2011 film Bridesmaids was written by Annie Mumulo and Kristen Wiig, who starred in the film.
Not only was the film funny, but it was about ninety percent women.

It portrayed all sorts of different female characters and surprisingly, the film was critically acclaimed. It's currently being nominated for an Oscar for best original screenplay and gave one of the co-starring actresses(Mellissa Mcarthy), a lot of attention for what is perhaps one of the strangest characters in the movie.
While Hollywood is still a primarily male dominated world, things are starting to shift and progress. Another film from 2011 was The Help, which was also nearly all women. There were also a number of t.v. shows that came out such as 2 Broke Girls, New Girl, Whitney and Enlightened that star women.